Talk:Byzantine Empire

Before discussing the naming and etymology of the Byzantine Empire, please visit the relevant archived discussions.

The name of this article is incorrect!

In Frisian and latin Wikipedia is Eastern-Roman empire why does Wikipedia stil call this article in English wikipedia Byzantine?--82.134.154.25 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I toured the area a couple of times in the past few years. I don't remember anyone referring to it as other than Byzantine. A good reason not to change it! Student7 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the correct answer is: "Because this article is written in the English language and not in Latin or Frisian". Flamarande (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the real reason why is because no one likes youGabr-el 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No but seriously the real reason why is:

Before discussing the etymology of the Byzantine Empire, please visit the relevant archived discussions[[1]].

Hope that clears it up. Have an insane-free day :))))Gabr-el 01:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I always liked subtlety. And this was a very subtle hint you gave. Many thanks. Dr.K. logos 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, unless you were IP 82., in which case I regret having you at the end of my steam! Gabr-el 01:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An IP? What is an IP? Oh, I forgot. No, no, I don't do sockpuppets ;) Dr.K. logos 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it then!Gabr-el 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Take care Gabr-el. Always nice seeing you. BTW I agree with your points as usual. Dr.K. logos 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the respect and admiration is mutual. Gabr-el 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, if the article is renamed or not, this name ("Byzantine Empire") as far as I see, is still against Wikipedia's NPOV rule (I think it was explained above), which may seem strange for a "featured article". I believe this problem will still remain open to debate (despite all these archives), since as far as I see, it wasn't solved. In my opinion, the name "Byzantine Empire" is more like some sort of (anachronistic) "joke nickname" (and I think articles should not be named after "nicknames"), it's nearly the same like naming the article Soviet Union as "Empire of Evil" (ironically, "Byzantine Empire" actually nearly meant "Empire of Evil" when it was popularized in the 18th-19th centuries). (To be honest, I have to confess, I have difficulty understanding why someone would want to defend this name (although this is my opinion), and as far as I know, most people know what "Eastern Roman Empire" is, it's not like the article wouldn't explain it anyway.) Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I'm absolutely sick and tired of this bullshit. This is the English wikipedia and the name used by the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world, including historians and academia is 'Byzantine Empire'. Don't play some ridiculous NPOV card and/or whine about the injustice of history and/or of the English-speaking world. We (and Wikipedia in general) are NOT supposed to correct the "mistakes" of the ages and of our current reality at all. Go debate the issue with historians and teachers and stop filling our ears (eyes). To be honest I find it utterly ridiculous how people who learnt English as a foreign language decide that they don't like something in that language and then try to dictate to the English-speaking world how it should speak it. The English-speaking world has clearly decided how it will call the subject: Byzantine Empire. If you or anyone else doesn't like it I humbly and honestly suggest that you leave this article and its talkpage in peace and remove it from your watchlist asap. You are worse than toothless old men who are keep complaining about someone who did something against their nation thousands of years ago. They at least are foolish old men. Flamarande (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You may find this strange and probably you won't believe me, but I appreciate your honesty. However, I don't think I ever tried "to dictate to the English-speaking world how it should speak", and I don't intend to do that (and of course, I'm unable to do so, anyway), this discussion is mainly about this article. Also, the (english) term "Eastern Roman Empire", the NPOV rule and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict obviously are not my inventions. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less as a sidenote, I would like to point out that in general, a simple link to Google Books can be misleading. When you take a closer look at the sources in your link that use the term "Eastern Roman Empire", some of them appear to refer to the late classical period (which is conventional), others use it as an alternative for "Byzantine Empire", yet others state that the ERE evolved into the Byzantine Empire. Iblardi (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande took the suppressed ideas right out of my mind. Gabr-el 03:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that any insult to the One True Roman Empire will be meet with severity; Constantine XI and his army of 5000 monks and nuns are on their way right now.

The empire's name is not the Byzantine empire. As a result the article is incorrect. Because this nickname is popularized wikipedia mods may want to keep it. So be it. The name Byzantine will still be the incorrect way to refer to the Basileia Romaion or Roman empire in the English language (and all other languages) because that was never the name of the empire was called. Certainly after sufficient historical research one should post an article. So if this is a matter is to be discussed with historians i imagine this has not happened. Because i find that an encyclopedia should not trade the truth for what is the popularized term or popular opinio , although it should mention what it is the popular opinion to explain how it connects with the less popular truth. For those reasons i find the whole matter is simply ridiculous. Of course some may disagree. They don't really deserve any respect.

I look forward to the improvement of wikipedia. alas i am not optimistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.73.23 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I don't deserve respect, I admit!!!! I stole the 5 apples during the siege of Constantinople, and made the hungry defenders hungrier!!!! Gabr-el 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing, I sold rotten food (its weight in gold) to the last emperor and his army and that's why they lost the final battle. In exchange the Turkish sultan gave me a harem full of beautiful Byzantine women. I was robbed I tell you! You want to know why? There are no 'Byzantine' women at all. Flamarande (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't beat ourselves too much Flamarande; we didn't wrong the Byzantines since they don't exist.Gabr-el 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And now you expect the x or the z newcomer to start searching the relevant archived discussions without even giving him a link?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. However, I regret to inform you that I am not bothered to help in this regard. :) Gabr-el 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The real reason why the Byzantine Empire won't be merged with the Roman Empire (on wikipedia) is because the article in turn would be too massive, too epic for one article. --Tataryn77 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

800 BC from Romulus to 1453 AD? 2200 years of awesomeness!!!!!!! My brain can't handle the very idea!!!! Too much good stuff!!!!!Gabr-el 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current Roman Empire article should be renamed as "Roman Empire (ancient)" or "Ancient Roman Empire", and a new article "Roman Empire" should be made, which should give shorter overviews of the empire's entire periods (from 27 BC to 1453/1461 AD), offering links to the more specialized articles Ancient Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What stops us from arguing for the Holy Roman Empire to get going? Remember, the last Palaiologan Emperor sold his right to the Roman Empire, when he was in exile to a European monarch, and it probably rests with the current King of Spain, who is descendant of all major European monarchies. Furthermore Cody7777777, which academic source(s?) do you wish to cite that creates this time period? Gabr-el 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are enough sources here arguing for 1453 as an end for the Roman Empire, and there is also this web page. I don't think there is any reason to include the German Holy Roman Empire, since it wasn't the same state, but a separate one with a similar name (or rather just a title, since there could be no "Holy Roman Emperor" in western Europe during the middle ages unless he was first King of Germany and King of Italy). The medieval (eastern) Roman Empire continues (in a de facto sense) directly from the ancient Roman Empire, and even Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ends in 1453. Also, if we accept (de jure) claims of other states then we'll have to include the Ottoman Empire and probably other states as well. I don't think those claims can have any validity since "Hereditary Rule" was not officially accepted in the Roman Empire, and an emperor had to be officially elected by the senate, the army and the people (and he also had to be a Roman citizen). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are vastly more sources saying that the Roman Empire ended in 467 or 476 AD (can't remember which on exactly). You are incorrect to conclude that the Holy Roman Empire was a different state; at the time of Charlemagne it corresponded to a size equal to that of the Western Roman Empire, he was crowned in Rome, and ultimately the Habsburgs purchased the rights of inheritance to the crow. Now then, you have presented two false points that defeat your claim; 1)The hereitary rule was very much accepted by the Byzantine Empire; Alexius I--> John II --> Manuel I--> Alexius II again. Then there's Michael VIII --> Andronikus II --> Michael IX --> Androikus III --> etc. need I go on? 2) The Senate? You are joking right? The Senate had long last power by the 2nd Century AD, and lost its status as a de jure power by the early Byzantine period. Thus in fact, the difference in attitude between the Senate and the rule of succession (being far more monarchical) are just a handfuk of differences between the Roman and Byzantine Empires.

In fact, the differences between the two empires are vast:

• Greek Ethnic dominance /plurality
• "Constantinoplian" Christianity, not Pagan or "Papal" Christianity
• Defensive conscription military, not volunteer 25-year offensive military
• Cavalry based, not infantry based

Gabr-el 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of having this discussion, which repeats the same arguments and counter-arguments as several others that have gone before (the regular appearance of the HRE in such discussions constitutes a Byzantine form of Godwin's law...) Cody raises many good points, and yes, politically and to a very large degree culturally, Byzantium was the direct continuation of the Roman state. That however is beside the point, since a) common English usage and b) majority scholarly usage refer to it as "Byzantine". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not exist to rewrite or "correct" history. The relation of the BE to the Roman Empire is explicitly mentioned in the very firts sentence of this article and prominently displayed in the infobox. Until Cambridge, Oxford, Dumbarton Oaks, and the other universities start calling it something else, let's leave it at that, shall we? Constantine ✍ 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The last discussions here were mainly about the idea of renaming the current Roman Empire as Ancient Roman Empire, and making a new Roman Empire article, offering shorter overviews of the entire periods (27 BC-1453 AD) and links to more specialized articles like Ancient Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire). (I also don't understand how I proposed a rewriting of history, and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict prefers english equivalents of native names, but this was already discussed above.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds simple. Yet look just below at Gabr-el's research. It's the Energizer Bunny of naming discussions. Keeps going and going and... Dr.K. logos 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Granted that you support the position I share; nonetheless the Holy Roman Emperors, as one of the purchasers of the title from the last Palaiologan emperor-in-exile, has some legitimate claim to Byzantium. We may even go further and say that Hitler, as legitimate chancellor of Germany in the 1933 elections, has inherited this claim to Ancient Rome. Gabr-el 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear God, now I can't get it out of my head (shudder)... Dux et Cancellarius Imperii Adolphus Augustus Caesar... The weird thing is, he did possess the HRE regalia after 1938, and if he had been more like Mussolini, he might have gone for it. Constantine ✍ 06:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They did say "Heil" and raised their hands to him... the evidence is clearly substantial. Gabr-el 06:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When I referred to the senate I specified "officially", I actually meant in a "de jure" sense (sorry for omitting that), as far as I know "hereditary rule" despite the fact that it happened, it was not "officially" accepted, in fact those emperors ruled in hereditary succession because the emperor had the right to appoint his successor (or crown co-emperors), not because they were his sons, and anyway the empire's autocratic government was different from most feudal states, that's why I doubt those claims would have any validity. Regarding the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD, it was obviously the Kingdom of the Franks, which adopted the title "Roman Empire" (Charlemagne ruled his lands because he was King of the Franks, not because he was crowned "Roman Emperor"), I do not deny that it is a successor (separate) state (and I do not really oppose its article name actually), but it is not a continuation of the old state, the medieval eastern Roman Empire is not a successor but a continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, I think this is obviously a fact (in my opinion the most legitimate successor of the empire (not continuation) would be the Ottoman Empire, but that's just my opinion). Also, how many sources claim that the (entire) Roman Empire ended in 476? (or 1806 AD in case of the Holy Roman Empire, I think there were enough shown supporting 1453, and historians even if they use the term "byzantine" many of them do not deny that it was in fact still the "Roman Empire" (with some changes)).

• Greek Ethnic dominance /plurality

The empire was still multi-ethnic during most of its time (I believe that Greek ethnic dominance occurred only in the 14th-15th centuries), and there was also no Latin "ethnic" dominance in earlier times (well, maybe during the early Roman Republic, but not during the time of the Roman Empire). While the (ancient) empire's culture was based on Hellenistic culture. To be Roman meant to be a "Roman citizen", which was extended in 212 AD to all of the empire's free people), not to be an ethnic Latin or Greek. But what is important is that these people considered themselves as Romans, I don't think it is our right to judge what "Roman" means (also I don't think that there were too many people in the Holy Roman Empire which considered themselves as "Romans", although I could be wrong).

• "Constantinoplian" Christianity, not Pagan or "Papal" Christianity

I believe the terms "Constantinoplian" and "Papal" Christianity are misleading, there could be more debates on this point (and it could be argued that Christianity in western Europe in the 13th century was quite different than it was in the Roman Empire in the 5th century), but if we consider that the "Roman" name is linked with their religion, then someone could claim that only the "Roman pagans" were "Romans", which would obviously be false (especially since there were actually many "pagan religions"), and there were Roman Emperors which have imposed Arianism, Miaphysitism or Iconoclasm as official religions.

• Defensive conscription military, not volunteer 25-year offensive military

The "Roman Republic" changed its military during the reforms of Gaius Marius, does that makes it less Roman? Why should the Roman Empire no longer be "Roman" if it changes its military organization?

• Cavalry based, not infantry based

Were the Romans restricted somehow to be based only on infantry? (If I remember correctly during the early Roman Republic, the cavalrymen (or knights, "equites") represented the most prestigious element, although they were probably a small minority.)

Cody7777777 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I may as well offer some response... Cavalry are to be distinguished into two parts. The prestigious upper classes rode into battle, where else the less prestigious, non-Roman Italian allies (who were not citizens and definitely not the elan of the army). Cavalry slowly increased in prominence when the Roman Empire acquired Eastern provoinces; from there, Eastern Cataphracts and Sarmatian Cavalry were recruited.

The Reforms of Gaius Marius are often heavily exaggerated; the basic equipment of the Roman soldier and his tactics remained unchanged; it was Marius' abilities as an organizer; organizing the armies himself, paying for the armor that set a new precedent.

My point about Roman vs. Constantinoplian Christianity is that as time went on, there was a divergence in the traditions of the two Churches; the former looked to Rome as a central authority, the latter believed in the principal of "First among equals" where no Bishop is truly in charge, except that the Emperor is the protector of the Church.

The differences you have cited within the Ancient Roman Empire's lifespan, and the differences I have cited between post 480 AD Empire and Ancient Rome are not of the same magnitude I would argue - the rise of Christianity in the 4th century conveniently supports my point, since the date of Constantinople's founding, the date of Christianity's legalization and the date given for Byzantium's start more or less coincide. A few changes in armor or weaponary is a long way off from a linguistic, cultural, religious and strategic change. Gabr-el 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I knew, the Marian reforms were responsible for changing the Roman army into a professional standing army (previously, Roman citizens were recruited, but they were not "professionals" and had to return to their lands, after there was no more need of them), I don't think this is a small change, and it could be said that later, in some ways Heraclius reverted these reforms. You are, of course, correct that Christianity had a large impact on the empire, and it obviously made it less "Pagan", but not less "Roman" (and I also don't think that there are many people who claim that Christianity made it less "Roman"), in fact in the medieval eastern Roman Empire (as well as in medieval western Europe), "Romans" also had to be orthodox catholic Christians (I believe that is one of the reasons, the west started calling the east Romans as "Greeks", when conflicts appeared, while the east Romans, began to consider the Western Church as "Frankish"), and to not consider them "Romans" because they were Christians, would obviously be a "subjective POV". It may be possible that I misunderstand the context in which your are speaking about "Roman vs. Constantinoplian Christianity" (and I realize the danger of turning this in a religious dispute), but in case this is about the differences between the Western and Eastern parts, obviously in the west, the Bishop of Rome, being the only Apostolic See in the west had more control there, although it seems the Archbishop Ambrose of Milan also had considerable influence there for a while (but the Bishop of Rome began acquiring even more influence, when it was no longer part of the Roman Empire, and outside the emperor's influence), however in case this refers to the whole Roman Empire, as far as I know there is no evidence that the Bishop of Rome ever had control in the east (excluding Illyricum (which also included Greece, Macedonia and western Moesia), until Leo III the Isaurian removed it (along with Sicily and southern Italy) from his control), he claimed a primacy of honor ("First among equals"), which was recognized, but he had no control over the eastern Bishops, and as far as I know he didn't attempted to impose his control (at least not until later centuries) over the Apostolic Sees of Alexandria (the Bishop of Alexandria was also called "Pope of Alexandria") and Antioch (which was also founded by Saint Peter), his conflicts only about jurisdictions (excluding heresies), in this period were only with Constantinople (which became considered officially as "New Rome"), but I don't understand how this makes it less "Roman", since both were part of the Roman Empire (actually Constantinople New Rome was part of the Roman Empire longer than (Elder) Rome). Regarding culture, ancient Roman culture (even from the times of the early republic) became based on (or at least was heavily influenced by) Greek and Hellenistic cultures, in fact I think it was Christianity which caused more changes in the later Roman culture. Regarding the Greek language, it had a large influence in the ancient Roman Empire and not just in the eastern provinces (this, of course, doesn't mean that there was a Greek "ethnic dominance", neither in the ancient period, nor in most medieval periods). In my opinion, some important changes in the Roman Empire occurred the 3rd century (although it didn't made it less "Roman), before that century, "Rome was a great city with a large empire", after that century (following the extended citizenship by Caracalla in 212, and the reforms of Diocletian, and also after those of Constantine) the empire became "Romania, a large empire, with many great cities (Rome, Constantinople New Rome, Mediolanum, Nicomedia, Alexandria, Antioch, Trier, Ravenna)", the founding of Constantinople was rather a result of the diminution of (elder) Rome's influence as a political center. (Also, after the 3rd century the the Roman state became more known as "Roman Empire" and "Romania", before the 4th century, the official name of the Roman state was still "Roman Republic", but anyway Octavian Augustus was the first Roman emperor.) In my above posts, I didn't meant to say that Roman state didn't changed (obviously changes appear in time), but rather that those changes didn't made it less "Roman" (obviously the Roman state had differences in the 7th century BC, the 4th century BC, the 2nd century BC, the 1st century AD, the 4th century AD, the 8th century AD, the 12th century AD and the 15th century AD, similarily the English state today has (many) differences from the English state in the middle ages), I think it is not encyclopedic to have an article named Roman Empire referring only to the ancient period (since it is named "Roman Empire", it means it refers to the entire periods), but anyway I don't currently have the time to do a new Roman Empire article about the period 27 BC - 1453 AD. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well more scholars out there think it is encyclopedic the way it is than not. Gabr-el 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to ask then, how many historians claim that the (entire) Roman Empire ended in 476? (As far as I know that date, is just a conventional end date for the Western Roman Empire or Ancient Rome, not of the (entire) Roman Empire.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find that answer by going to your nearest library and taking out books about Rome. Gabr-el 02:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too ignorant, but I don't think I ever seen a source to explicitly claim that the (entire) Roman Empire fell in 476 (the date around which the current Roman Empire article ends (well, excluding a small paragraph)). Anyway, I tried to do a Google Books search about 476 as the end of the Roman Empire, and as far as I see, most of them claim that the Western Roman Empire or the "Roman Empire in Italy" fell in that year (even most of those which give that impression (476 as the end), when analyzed more carefully, they usually say the same thing). However, most of the searches for 1453 as an end date, as far as I see, explicitly claim that the Roman Empire ended in the 15th century. As far as I know the date 476, is usually considered as the end of the Western Roman Empire or Ancient Rome, and sometimes as the "Fall of Rome" (the city, despite the fact that there was no conquest of Rome on that date, the de facto capital of the west being Ravenna), not as the fall of the (entire) Roman Empire. In 476, there was rather a coup d'etat organized by the Germanic commander in the Roman army Odoacer against the Roman Emperor from Italy, Romulus Augustulus, after which Odoacer, agreed to rule Italy as the governor of Zeno, the eastern Roman Emperor, and of Julius Nepos, the western Roman Emperor in Dalmatia. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only ignorant, but persistent and bothersome, and now approaching trolling. There is a consensus of scholars and wiki users who, rather than accepting the continuity of the Roman Empire, have separated the two. We have already shown you the ample sources that differentiate the two eras and the ample differences between them. Gabr-el 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The very fact is that you have sources distinguishing the empire into its western and eastern halfs. The Eastern half of the Empire, rather than be called Eastern Roman, has been called Byzantine. Gabr-el 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it has been called "Byzantine" (which may have some problems on wiki) doesn't mean that it isn't still part of the Roman Empire, that's only to distinguish the periods of the empire. An article called Roman Empire should give information about all the empire's periods, and there's no evidence, as far as I know that Roman Empire, can mean only the ancient Roman Empire. I believe there are actually enough sources supporting a Roman Empire article ending in 1453 (not just a date in the infobox). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cody, yes, the fact that Byzantium was the direct continuation of the Roman Empire has been widely accepted, and, as stated before, it is mentioned in the very first sentence of this article. Nevertheless, historical conventions, whether we like them or not, exist, and we must adhere to them until they change. You are engaged in a one-man crusade on a largely secondary issue, going against both scholarly convention as well as consensus amongst your fellow WP-editors. Personally, I think it would be better if you employed this considerable determination and energy in editing or adding some articles on Byzantine history, which in WP has a large number of gaps and is often full of woefully inaccurate information. Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well

In the past two years, including the last two threads, the issue has been discussed and closed 16 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_6#For_the_love_of_god...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_6#The_article_.22Eastern_Roman_Empire.22_should_be_merged_with_Byzantine_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_5#Merger_proposal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_5#Established:_330
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_5#Why.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_4#The_Name_Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_4#Split_proposal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_4#More_on_the_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#name_of_Byzantine_empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#WHAT.2C_IF_ANYTHING.2C_IS_A_BYZANTINE.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Changing_the_first_Emperor_and_date_of_the_Empire.27s_beginning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Renaming_the_article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Proposed_date.2Fpredecessor_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Names_used_by_some_contemporary_nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Renaming_the_article_.28again.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#The_name_of_this_article_is_incorrect.21

Gabr-el 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh God! You did some searching!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Kill me. lolGabr-el 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems strong evidence that there really is a problem. I predict that this pattern will continue until someone changes it (at which point, of course, we will switch to a different pattern: an edit war :-). Cody7777777 has made the best suggestion [above] by my assessment, but I'm certainly not going to touch this "3rd rail"! Jmacwiki (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem, but you are mistaken I am afraid, in assuming the problem is with the title, rather than with a fetish to change the name. Gabr-el 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right, Gabr-el, though when wearing my reader's hat, rather than my editor's hat, I find that the BE label obscures the points that I would research or read about, more than the [E]RE label would. But maybe that's just me: I have an interest in how the empire's citizens and rulers thought of themselves, and how they came to do so, rather than how historians and Western rulers thought of them or referred to them. I don't deny the legitimacy of the latter, it just doesn't correspond to my own interests about that state. (Cody7777777's suggestion, starting with retitling the RE page as "Ancient RE" and writing an overview page for the history of the whole empire, seems like the cleanest way to handle both camps, even though an imperfect solution.)

As for the renaming, well, I can only say that using the name "Roman Empire" (albeit in its Medieval phase) seems like the only intellectually defensible label here -- though I fully recognize that the community of historians has not made that choice, and is not bound by any such rules. Just my 2 cents as a reader. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the new "Roman Empire" article suggestion, however such a project will not be easy, in case it will be started. (Regarding, the name of this article, as far as I see, the WP:NCON places more emphasis on self-identifying usage, this was discussed before.) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia's version of the healthcare debate. Interesting. I have a question. If self-determination isn't the determining factor for usage then how do we then reconcile the use of Côte d'Ivoire as opposed to the generally used English term "Ivory Coast"? Perhaps it's a bit different since there are still a diplomatically active entity, but on principle it's the same. It isn't a simple problem since Western culture has cultivated numerous contradictions that can't readily be remedied by Wikipedia alone. The idea of Europe being a continent for instance. It's hardly a clear opinion, but I do agree that BE is an inaccurate term. That's clear, but it's unclear how we deal with that in terms of what is published by Wikipedia. It's question of accuracy vs. historical context; which is more important. Unfortunately historical context must be taken into account. It's what's taught in schools. Time will tell whether we see a change in how this is percieved. Ok, I'll go back to lurking for awhile. Just my two cents. Unak78 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If we rename the Byzantine Empire for Accuracy's sake, then the Roman Empire need be renamed. After all, it is simply anachronistic to call it an empire, a word that developed long after the time of the First Augustus, who himself thought he was head of a Republic. The Holy Roman Empire need be renamed as well, after all it was simply known as the Roman Empire during it's conception. That stretches the Empire to the 19th century, unless you consider the Austrian title, then the 20th century. The France article should be renamed Gaul, because the land was known to the natives as Gaul first, and only later did historians start referring it to France. The fools. The Americas were popularly called Columbia first, so that should be renamed to reflect the accuracy and not the error of historians to now call it America. Of course, then Greece and Germany and Russia and China. We stopped calling it Persia, and went with Iran, by why stop there; I say, for the sake of Accuracy, we use only Persian characters for the name. Why rely on knowledge that is found within an article for further and complete explanation, when we can simply put all the information for an article into the title bar? Yes, I propose that the entire Byzantine article be moved into the title bar. It seems a Modest Proposal. 173.23.96.220 (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Population of Constantinople

See how the graphic plunges in the mid 1400's

Franz Babinger says that Mehmed the Conqueror usually divided the poulation of the town he conquered into three parts and that one part was sent to Constantinople to increase population of that city. What happened to the population of Constantinople in the 1400's and why did it need to be increased by the people from other countries? Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the graph is rather inaccurate: the population reached a peak before the plagues of the 6th century at 400-500,000; in the 7th-8th centuries, it fell to ca. 50-70,000 people. It recovered gradually in the 9th-11th centuries, and in the Komnenian period it numbered again more than 300,000. The city was thoroughly depopulated ever after the Fourth Crusade, and recovered gradually only under the Palaiologans in the late 13th century, probably reaching 60-80,000 in the early 14th century. By the 1450s, after civil wars and territorial losses (and the Black Death), its population numbered ca. 40-50,000 people, who lived in practically separate settlements inside the area of the old city walls. Many of them must have perished or fled in the sack itself. Since Mehmed wanted to re-establish the city as a proper imperial capital, he had to bring people in from elsewhere.Constantine ✍ 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As I was speculating on the Reference Desk, Constantinople couldn't be maintained at its former size after the Balkans and Anatolia were lost; anyone who could afford it probably fled (as there was, at least for scholars, a mini-diaspora to the west); and the city was no longer the centre of trade between east and west while it was totally surrounded by the Ottomans. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, plus, the actual centre of commerce had moved to the Genoese colony of Galata at least since ca. 1290, when Andronikos II disbanded the navy and relied exclusively on the Genoese for naval matters. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the city of Constantinople suffered a low level in the 7th - 8th century; remember at the Arab sieges of Constantinople, the Byzantines had an army of 30,000 troops, and a total force of 80,000 men in the late 8th century; Anatolia and Greece could not have provided such vast man power alone. Gabr-el 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the army in the sieges certainly was composed chiefly of units drawn from the outskirts and the nearest themata. Even the later tagmata were not usually quartered in the city, but in Thrace and Bithynia. In the Arab sieges, the Opsikion army alone would probably provide at least some 10,000 men. And a total force of 80,000 was more theoretical than practical, since it includes the part-time thematic militias, who had inherently limited strategic mobility. Field armies in effect rarely counted more than 30,000. A large-scale mobilization of almost all themes and tagmata as late in 863 only gathered 50,000 men, and this number, coming from a hostile source, is probably exaggerated as well. As for Constantinople, with the grain supply and the aqueduct system broken down, the European hinterland threatened by raids, etc., its population cannot possibly have sustained anything close to 100,000, especially if one considers that the 7th century also saw extensive de-urbanization, i.e. a return of the city people to the countryside which could sustain them. Constantine ✍ 21:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The citing of 50,000 - remember in a campaign, you don't send every single soldier to battle, you keep a substantial number in reserve. Besides, if the countryside was in foreign hands in the 7th century by Arabs, Persians and Bulgars, one must come to the conclusion that Constantinople, with a large population, formed the central basis of the recovery. Gabr-el 22:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you do not send all your troops into battle. But clearly, this event involved a major mobilization of the thematic forces of all of Asia Minor. And in the 7th and 8th centuries, despite the raids, Asia Minor was still well-defended and well-populated. Remember, in the 8th century, the themes revolted several times against the emperor in Constantinople, which shows that they held considerable power. The "recovery" as such did not begin until the Amorians, and was not solely due to Constantinople. True, in a sense the Byzantine state was the capital since the administrative apparatus was centered there, but a capital without prosperous and populous provinces to draw taxes, food and soldiers from is nothing, as the Palaiologoi found out. Anyway, the population issue is not my idea, I have read it in numerous books (Haldon's Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome, Laiou's The Byzantine Economy come to mind right now), and to be frank it came as a surprise to me too, when I first encountered it. I also had kept the impression of a Constantinople with a large population, secure, prosperous and defiant in my mind. Apparently that was not quite true for a time, although even 50,000 would have made it easily the biggest city in the Christian world at the time. Older works still assert larger numbers (I remember reading in an older CUP publication something about 800,000 people for Constantinople & suburbs in the 12th century), but more recent scholarship generally tends to reject the larger numbers. Conversely, in earlier times, it was for instance believed that the Byzantine Levant had declined and been depopulated in the latter 6th/early 7th century before the Arab conquests, and now archaeological evidence shows that the population was actually booming... The issue is quite interesting (hopefully at some point I'll find time for an article on this), but most estimates are unfortunately just that. Constantine ✍ 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ronnie Ellenblum has done some work on the demographics of the Levant during the Crusades, which has basically overturned decades of assumptions about who was living there and how many of them there were. I remember he talks about earlier Byzantine demographics too, and I'm pretty sure he has references to books and articles about the Byzantine period. (This is in his "Frankish Rural Settlement" book.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

50-70,000 is far too low a number for the 7th century still. I am not denying what you have stated, but it doesn't seem to deny a more modest number of around 100,000. Besides, 30,000 peasant raised troops are not going to be so willing to abandon their farms and defend some distant city for the glory of their empire. Again, I do not deny that the themes contributed. But I don't see how their contribution makes Byzantium's population seem to be lower. Gabr-el 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage of 'Graeci' in the christian world

Use of Imperium Graecorum in the West usually implied a rejection of this empire's claim to be the inheritor of the Roman Empire. Byzantine claims to Roman inheritance had been actively contested from at least the time of the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in 800.

Those unsourced claims are just false.

1. The 'Imperium Graecorum' and 'Graecia/Graeci' for Byzantium and its people were not just used once in a while just to imply a rejection of the empire's claim to the Roman Empire. They were in fact standard terms in all christian world from Sweden to Sicily and Ireland to Bulgaria as attested in virtually all Latin, Germanic and Slavic texts (see for example the Greece runestones or the Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks). Like some of the modern specialised sources state, people back then linked Byzantium to ancient Greece, and that was not done in order to offend it but because it's how they saw things (read Western travellers to Constantinople by K.N. Ciggaar). So the opening paragraph which states that merely "some" western nations called it Imperium Graecorum every now and then is wrong. I mean you can debate as much as you like on whether the people's views back then were corrent or wrong, but you have no right to change or misinterpret their views to what you think is correct. That's just common sense I believe.

2. The 'Imperium Graecorum' or Graecia/Graeci for Byzantium and its people was in use since at least the days of Justinian. It was even used as an argument by the Germans of Italy to convince the local Italians to side against Justinian since they had nothing in common with his empire. So it was probably standardised as soon as the Western empire fell. I can dig up my source for this if someone contests it.

In brief I remember this article used to be relatively well sourced, especially the opening paragraph. Now there's just a lot of bolt, subjective POV in there that should've never been allowed without sources. I even noticed that some of the good edits have been removed along with their references, and the source in the reference tags has been replaced with POV (!!!). This is just not such a good article anymore. Miskin (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead and edit the parts you disagree with? Iblardi (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the statement "Use of Imperium Graecorum in the West usually implied a rejection of this empire's claim to be the inheritor of the Roman Empire. Byzantine claims to Roman inheritance had been actively contested from at least the time of the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in 800." can be sourced here. The statement does not say that "Imperium Graecorum" was used only after 800 and only to imply a rejection of its romanity, it says that after the year 800 this term was also used to deny it was the "Roman Empire", since Charlemagne's Empire was supposed to replace the Roman Empire from the east (Charlemagne being crowned as a successor to Constantine VI, so it means that until Constantine VI, the west recognized the Eastern Roman Empire as the "Roman Empire", even if they already called it as "Imperium Graecorum"), however the Eastern Roman Empire was sometimes called also as "Imperium Constantinopolitanum" or "Imperium Romaniae" in the west. The statement could be changed however as "After the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in 800, the use of "Imperium Graecorum" in the West also implied a rejection of this empire's claim to be the Roman Empire.". Regarding the slavs, according to this they did not used just "Greki", but also "Rimljany" or "Romei", the orthodox Slavs don't seem to have denied its romanity, especially since later the idea of "Third Rome" appeared in the Tsardom of Moscow. The rulers of several slavic empires also adopted the title "Tsar of the Romans"([2], [3]), and the ruler of the Vlach-Bulgar Empire Kaloyan also called himself "Rhomaioktonos". The phrase "it became known to some of its contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks" could be changed as "it became known to its Western contemporaries, but also to some of its northern neighbors and the Armenians, as the Empire of the Greeks." (and the note after "some of its contemporaries" should be deleted in this case). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The first link you gave is Romanides, a Greek scholar who is actually known for his minority views, e.g. arguing that Greeks and Romans have always been the same people, and he's by no means a reliable source. This claim however doesn't even stand by common sense. Of course Imperium Graecorum would have an offensive-hostile character at some contexts, but if that context was the only instance of the term's usage, then why would the christians use it in documents that were never meant to be seen by Byzantines?
As for the Slavs, I'm quoting your own source "rimljany+or+romei&lr= here, page 173:
"The analysis of a number of Slavonic translated texts from this period demonstrates that when it denotes the subjects of the Byzantine Emperors, the name "Rhomaoi" (Romans) is most commonly rendered as "Greki" (Greeks). According to the historiographic scheme shared by a number of translators and most clearly and consistently evident in the translations of the chronicles of John Malamas and George Hamartolos, by the sixth and seventh centuries the Roman Empire became a tsardom of the Greeks. This, however, cannot be automatically construed as evidence of some ingrained negativism or a matter-of-principal rejection of the ideas of universal dominance and the unique mission of the Byzantine emperors."
In brief of course there would be more than one names for Byzantium and for most cultures at the time, but as far as the "standard" name and image goes, I think this paragraph explains it. And you said it, the Roman title was adopted by Slavs, Germans and even Turks, literally every state that wanted to express universal land claims. So really, thinking that someone at the time would apply it exclusively to Byzantium because they viewed them as actual Romans is just naive. Anyway I think it shouldn't be hidden that Byzantium's contemporaries did not view the Byzantines as Romans but as Greeks. If for no good reason this would help the reader understand much of empire's politics, e.g. the constant hostility between Byzantium and the Latins (which includes the city of Rome, the pope and the Roman clergy). Miskin (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, how do you propose we change these phrases then? You could add more about "Imperium Graecorum" in the "Nomenclature" section if you wish. The phrase "Use of Imperium Graecorum in the West usually implied a rejection of this empire's claim to be the inheritor of the Roman Empire." could also be changed as "Use of Imperium Graecorum in the West also implied a rejection of this empire's claim to be the inheritor of the Roman Empire." it doesn't say this was the only usage (the phrase underlines that the west after Charlemagne also denied it was the "Roman Empire" (they still recognized Constantine VI as a Roman Emperor), the orthodox slavs don't seem to have denied this, even if they called them usually "greeks"). The phrase "it became known to some of its contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks" could also be changed as "it became known to most of its western and northern contemporaries, but also to the Armenians, usually as the Empire of the Greeks." (but this could give the impression that the slavs also denied it was the "Roman Empire"), most of its eastern and southern contemporaries which were islamic nations, called it as "Rûm", this is already sourced in the lead, later the ottoman turks even named most of the Balkan peninsula as "Rumelia". (Also, as far as I see, Romanides doesn't speak here about the ancient Romans being Greeks, he does this in other books.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make those changes in the first paragraph. I took off the vernacular terms "Romania" and "Romais" from the opening line where they were listed next to the official name (and their english translation was largely original research). I've never heard of "Rhomais" and if it's mentioned in a text or two it's definitely something that was being given undue weight. Also I removed the mention about "more neutral name" since this was expressing nothing more but an individual editor's view. I'm going to try to remove "Hellenistic" and replace it with some sourced material. You can say that the Byzantine Empire was continuing Hellenistic culture but not that it developed or adapted it, that makes no sense as the term 'hellenistic' has both cultural and historical connotation. Miskin (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I can't remove this because it has a reference... eventhough I'm sure that this is not how the reference uses "Hellenistic". Miskin (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that - I suspect what is meant is "Hellenic", i.e. Greek; but I can't access any of the cited sources, so I'm not sure to change it. At least the link to "Hellenistic civilization" is rather misleading. Varana (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty convinced that "Hellenic" would be the more accurate term. As for the lack of sources, well, some freedom of expression should be allowed for in conveying the substance of the matter, especially in something as condense as the article's lead. After all we are writing an encyclopedia rather than offering a patchwork of already existing sentences. Iblardi (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is what Miskin has said: The term "Hellenistic" has a footnote with several sources attached. I can't check whether that's actually what these sources say, but I'm reluctant to remove a statement that claims to be well-sourced. Varana (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The first two sources that the footnote refers to, at least, are partly available online. They do not seem to support the use of "Hellenistic" at the given pages. Iblardi (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that the assumption of the footnote was that both designations, imperium Constantinopolitanum and imperium Romaniae [edit: the latter of which is probably wrong for the BE, by the way], are "neutral" in the sense that they refer to an objectively identifiable territory rather than to ethnicity, historical heritage, or whatever subject that may be susceptible to politicization. Also, the name "Romania" is not merely a "vernacular term". It is attested in Greek and Latin texts from the 4th century onward, and Wolff's article ("Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople", Speculum 23 (1948), pp. 1-34) gives a good overview of its development. Iblardi (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rhomais" appears a few times in this search, however "Romania" was an unofficial popular name, so in my opinion it should be re-added. The current "it became known to most of its contemporaries", contradicts with "To the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم‎ (Rûm "Rome")" (a considerable part of its contemporaries were islamic states)." The term "Hellenistic" can be sourced here [4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. Hellenic is not too accurate in my opinion since it can ignore the oriental influences. The empire's culture did not had just "Hellenic" influences, but also had strong Christian and oriental influences (for example, the autocratic character of the emperor (claiming "divine right") was of "Hellenistic" influence, not "Hellenic", as far as I know the idea of such a ruler, was despised in ancient classical Greece). (Also, since the empire had a multi-ethnic character most of its time ([9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]), we should avoid giving the impression that most of its people were ethnic "Greeks", in my opinion "Hellenistic" describes the situation better, since it can also include the hellenized populations.) Cody7777777 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the article presently states that the empire was known as "Greek" because it was "increasingly Hellenistic". This seems unsatisfactory on two accounts. First, the Hellenistic period falls before the Roman conquest; states' natures did not "become increasingly Hellenistic" afterwards. To use the term like that is anachronistic. Secondly, "Hellenistic" refers to a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. To state that this cultural mixture would have been the reason for the designation "Greek" seems curious. If, in addition to this, the supposedly supporting sources are ambiguous, a revision is in order. Also, I agree that the reference to "Romania" should be restored. Iblardi (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, though, that "imperium Romaniae" was used in papal correspondence not to denote the Byzantine Empire, but the Latin Empire of Constantinople, established after the Fourth Crusade. Iblardi (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, that phrase is supposed to explain why it was called "Greek", it needs more changing. Maybe it should be changed this way "The Empire preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions, but due to the increasing predominance of the Greek language, it became known to most of its western and northern contemporaries, but also to the Armenians, usually as the Empire of the Greeks." (the term "Romano-Hellenistic" is used here). Another possibility however, would be to just simply say "Later, it became known to most of its western and northern contemporaries, but also to the Armenians, usually as the Empire of the Greeks." (the culture and language could be explained elsewhere). Cody7777777 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The first version has the merit of trying to offer an explanation, which, to me, makes it preferable over the second one. However, I think we should be careful not to attach too much weight to the role of language alone. The Greek character of Constantinople was noted, and was used in polemics, almost from the founding of the city itself. It was essentially a Greek-speaking city in Greek territory, with a veneer of "Romanness" superimposed by the imperial administration. Iblardi (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they believed it had a "Greek character", but we cannot present their perceptions as being true facts, since its character also had strong Christian and oriental influences (however, if it is really necessary we could say that its western and northern contemporaries believed it had a "Greek character", although it is already stated that they called it as the "Empire of the Greeks"). Other possibilities would be "The Empire preserved Greco-Roman traditions, but due to its Hellenistic nature and the increasing predominance of the Greek language, it became known to most of its western and northern contemporaries, but also to the Armenians, usually as the Empire of the Greeks." or "The Empire preserved Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions, but due to its increasing Hellenization, it became known to most of its western and northern contemporaries, but also to the Armenians, usually as the Empire of the Greeks." (in my opinion, the current version is not so bad, although the language was not the only reason, there were also political and religious reasons sometimes). (Regarding Constantinople as a Greek-speaking city from the beginning, the following claims "Constantinople had been founded as a centre of latinity in the east and still numbered among its residents many Illyrians, Italians and Africans whose native tongue was Latin" (However, I do not know if the part with "founded as a centre of latinity" is entirely true). Also, Constantinople being the capital of a multi-ethnic empire most of its time, it should have also been a multi-ethnic city, but of course "Greek" was the language which they used most of the time.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the current version is an improvement compared to the previous one. But what is the relevancy of that note pointing to Laiou, Davies etc., which is still there? If it is flexible enough to support both causes, I doubt whether it has much value in this context. Iblardi (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cody I can't help but noticing that you keep using extreme minority cases in order to invent a general rule out of them. Your sourcing on using "Rhomais" as a supposedly official name of the Empire with a translation in english is really not convincing. The search you made has only one hit in the english langauge and the rest of the hits are some 19th century old French and German texts. Similarly, "Rhomania", which might make some sense when used in Greek, when translated POVly in english as "Romania" it just becomes confusing. These are not mainstream terms in the english language and by WP:UNDUE they lack the weight to be used in the opening paragraph (if at all). Similarly, in regards to the other name I removed, "Empire Romaniae", as Iblardi correctly stated this was used for the Latin Empire of Constantinple and not for Byzantium. I don't understand why you're trying to make your own research about why was the Empire called Imperium Graecorum rather than something else by its contemporaries, or to what extent Constantinople was Greek-speaking. There are many specialised sources dealing with these questions and I've already mentioned some earlier, so there's not really a puzzle for us to try to put together. For example, in regards to the names Byzantines would use for themselves, apparently "Graikoi" (Graeci-Greeks) was "a traditionally accepted term in Byzantium", whereas "Hellenes" became more widely used near in the empire's final centuries. So as you see much of your assumptions on the usage of "Imperium Graecorum" falls under original thought. The question on whether the Byzantines and their contemporaries where right or wrong to be using "Graeci" for the people of Byzantium is clearly out of the scope of this article. As for the debate of Hellenic vs Hellenistic, I don't know, to me it's pretty straight forward why 'Hellenistic' is out of context here and I can't follow your line of thought at all. I don't agree with the hidden meanings that you assume that those terms imply. Miskin (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not argued to re-add "Rhomais" in the lead (it is mentioned in the nomenclature section instead). Also, as far as I know, some of them started calling themselves as "Greeks" (in a more national sense) only in the late period (13th-15th centuries (before I think "Greeks" was used most of the time for those living in (southern modern) Greece, having a regional sense, while those in Macedonia, were called Macedonians, those in Thrace as Thracians, etc.), the book you posted refers to the period after 1204), but "Rhomaioi" was still more popular (the book claims that "Graikoi" "was rarely used"). In an english translation of the "Alexiad", the term "Romania" appears ("...to approach the coasts of Romania."), the "Gesta Francorum" of the first Crusade also uses the term "Romania". This chronicle of the Fourth Crusade uses the term "empire of Roumania" also to refer to the empire before the conquest of Constantinople (and I think there are also other earlier chronicles which refer to it in a similar way). The following books also use "Romania" to refer to the empire before 1204 (and after 1261),[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] (I think there were enough shown supporting this name). (Regarding, the term "Hellenistic", it refers usually to the mixture of "Hellenic" and oriental elements, we should not ignore the oriental influences the empire had, and I believe there were shown above sources which claimed that the empire also preserved the "Hellenistic" culture.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Hellenistic": No one doubts that the Empire had Hellenistic influences, which were part of its Greco-Roman heritage. But that was not the point of the sentence. The sentence stated that the Empire became _increasingly_ "Hellenistic", which is why its contemporaries would have called it "Greek". This is misleading. The debate is not whether it incorporated Hellenistic elements in its culture, but why it was called "Greek" and not "Roman". Hellenistic civilization is just not what the sentence is about.

I do more or less concur with you on Rhomanía. The parallel to the modern state "Romania" may be unfortunate, but that doesn't need to be our concern.

Regards, Varana (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventhough I have dropped out from this discussion I can't help but to point out how terribly mistaken you are once again Cody. In the Greek language the traditional collective name for Greek-speakers since antiquity had been "Hellenes". This term was associated with paganism in Byzantium and was mainly employed only in linguistic and historical context (e.g. the "Hellenic" language). Like you said it only started becoming an ethnonym again to Greek-speakers after the 11th century, and after the Latin conquest of 1204 the Byzantine states had adapted an almost modern Greek national consciousness at the time. However both myself and the sources I pasted were being very specific and didn't mention anything about the word "Hellenes" but the word "Greeks", i.e. "Graikos/Graikoi" in Greek. This was also a Greek ethnonym but it got popularised in the christian word by the Romans. So when it was said "Greek" it was meant exactly that "Graikoi", if I had wanted to say "Hellenes" I would've mentioned it specifically. Like the reference says the term Graikoi/Greeks (Γραικοί) had never stopped being an acceptable term for the Byzantines, and this is partly why it was the standardised term in the rest of the world. Read about Maximus the Confessor to see that Abba Maximus was asked in the court of Constantinople during his trial "Why do love the Romans and hate the Greeks" (diati tous Romaious agapeis kai tous Graikous miseis) [34].
Your own sources on the use on "Romania" imply what I said about the context of that word's usage - it was almost never employed in official context. To mention "Romania" in the lead of the Byzantine Empire article as one of the empire's name would be as misleading as to say that "Romaika/Romaic" is an alternative name for the Greek language (as Greek was often formally known in Byzantium). And by the way, much of the Nicaean rulers called used terms such as "Empire of the Hellenes" alongside "Empire of the Romans" and to quote Angold: "Emperor John Vatatzes not only claimed to have received the gift of royalty from Constantine the Great, but also emphasised his Hellenic descent and exhaulted the wisdom of the Greek people"[35]. For odd reasons this type of knowledge is nowhere mentioned in the article and has been repeatedly removed.
I hope you see the hypocrisy in this. There are countries like Turkey where in museums and other archaelogical monuments there's a huge taboo of employing the english term "Greek" to describe anything from ancient Greek, Byzantine, or modern Greek traces of civilisation in Turkey, as if avoiding to mention it would actually make it go away or become forgotten. And it's really sad to see that some areas of wikipedia are adapting similar strategies. Miskin (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize I haven't made a clear distinction above between "Greeks" and "Hellenes", sorry for that. The reason I claimed above that before the 12-13th century, "Greeks" was used (in the empire) in a more regional sense most of the time, was because in some documents like the "De Administrando Imperio" of Constantine VII, the term "Greeks" is used to describe the people living in southern modern Greece (like the Peloponesus) (other regional terms such as "Thracians" and "Macedonians" also appear in the book), however, when referring to all of the empire's citizens, the word "Romans" is used, and Constantinople is called as the "imperial city of the Romans", the term "Hellenes" also appears there, describing pagans. Regarding "Romania", the lead does not claim it is official (but, if really necessary, it could be specified, that it was an unofficial popular name, (and except the sources shown above, this english translation of "De Administrando Imperio", also uses "Romania" to refer to the empire). Regarding, the statement made by John III Vatatzes and the later use of "Hellenes" after the 12-13th centuries, it is actually mentioned in the articles Names of the Greeks#Revival in the meaning of "Hellene" and Byzantine Greeks#Revival of ethnicity. The question about "Romans" and "Greeks" during the trial of Saint Maximus the Confessor is interesting (although, to me it seems somewhat ambiguous, but that's just my opinion, also it should be noted that in some cases in that book, Maximus the Confessor used "Greeks" also when referring to the "pagan Greeks"[36][37][38]). However the book shown earlier claimed that they rarely used "Graikoi", even if it was acceptable (although, it should be noted that for Nicephorus II Phocas, according to a chronicle by Liutprand of Cremona, it was not acceptable, "Was it not unpardonable," they said, "to have called the universal emperor of the Romans, the august, great, only Nicephorus: "of the Greeks""). Cody7777777 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not just the Greeks vs Hellenes thing but a great deal of other things that are not very clear in your mind. I hope you realise that your personal interpretation on the primary sources can't be used a source for wikipedia because it's coming from your mouth and not a credible scholar and therefore everything you said above about Nikephoros' writings falls under WP:OR (this is WP policy, I'm not making it up). For all I know you may be a credible scholar but until you make your own publication which express your views on the primary sources, you're not allowed to use them to make edits. From what I see those sources and the terminology used prove the opposite point rather than the one you're trying to push. For example you're using this [39] primary source in order to draw conclusions on the usage of the Greek 'Graikos' in the Byzantine Empire and you conclude (by original research) that it is referring to the people of Hellas alone. However as I have already posted earlier [40], there is a secondary source which explicitely states that 'Graikoi' was a collective term for all Byzantines that was generally acceptable in their society. So really, why should I or wikipedia accepts the edits coming from your personal opinion rather than the published material? It's common sense and basic understanding of policy here.

As for the usage of 'Romania'... This source here [41] is part of a translation and a long explanation for a Bulgarian primary source, and here you're using it to back up your view that in Modern English the term 'Romania' is a mainstream term for the Byzantine Empire and its derivatives as they were used by the Greeks themselves?? I mean this is an absurdity on its own as it translates a Bulgarian text and not a Greek text, and I think everyone would agree that a translation of a medieval Slavic source certainly doesn't imply mainstream usage in modern English. If you keep googling some more you'll come to realise that Romania is used today in English mainly for the Latin Empire. Yes I know that the Greek 'Rwmania' (with an omega as opposed to modern Romania) was used in popular context to mean Byzantium, but this doesn't mean that Romania is mainstream terminology in today's English and nothing gives you the right to put free translations in an article's head. User:Iblardi also verified this earlier about the usage of 'Romania' so there's both editor consensus and lack of sources on this. I'm removing it and please don't add it again and stop reverting every single edit that I make, understand that you don't own this article and you clearly lack the sources and the understanding to back up your views. Miskin (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, the main use of the term "Greeks" before the 13th century, the following book claims "Greeks were the inhabitants of the Greek mainland" (it also refers later to the works of Constantine VII, "When he wants to refer to the population of the Peloponnese harassed by the Slavs he calls them not hellenes, but Graikoi", this book also explicitly states that they began"to refer to themselves as Greeks in a national sense, in the thirteenth century"), so this is not my invention. Regarding "Romania", it is used to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, in the following books written in English,[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50], [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75], as far as I see, there are many sources which also refer to the empire in this way, that statement is now sourced, so please do not remove sourced statements. I realize that the one I chose earlier was probably not the best choice, but I'll choose a different one. (And regarding consensus, as far as I see, User:Iblardi actually supported earlier, the restoring of "Romania" in the lead, and that name was in the lead for a considerable period of time without problems.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to be reading your sources more carefully, for example Hellenism in Byzantium p. 186. You'll be surprised at how often they will contradict your claims in just a few lines. Secondly, all the claims on the well-known usage or 'ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ' are references to direct translations. This does not justify the weight you're trying to put on it. The article on Romania refers to a modern country unrelated to this article, your obsession about this information can only confuse a reader of this article. Miskin (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise solution I propose you to put it someplace else other than the head of the article. And while you're at it you might want to add some explanation about it if you want to make a contribution out of it and not some confusing random information. Miskin (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "Romania" in the lead

There are many sources written in English regarding this state, which also call it as "Romania" (and they are not just translations, but this is also the common translation used in English for that term, and as far as I know, in the Empire's earlier period, this term was used in Latin, not in Greek). As far as I see, WP:UNDUE does in fact support its inclusion, because this is not a view held by a minority nor a fringe theory, and the term "Romania" is not mentioned in the starting of the lead (it is mentioned after the other names). Also, the name "Romania" was there for a considerable period of time (in fact it was there, before I even started editing on Wikipedia), without any problems of confusion arising. I don't really see any problem with informing the readers of Wikipedia about this, and people usually read an encyclopedia to learn. The lead also does not speak about official names (and the names "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" which are mentioned in the (beginning of the) lead, obviously were not official names of this state), that phrase in the lead, simply states that this state was also known as "Romania" during its time, and there are enough sources which support this, in fact "Romania" may have probably been used more often by the people than the official names ("Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans"), like the following book claims "Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire less often (in Latin) as "Imperium Romanorum" (Domain of the Romans) and more often as "Romania" (Romanland)". (Also, although it is not really important, I'm actually Romanian, and I don't have any problem at all, with the mention of "Romania" in the lead of the article, and modern Romania is not actually unrelated to this state, the voivodes of Wallachia and Moldavia considered themselves as the successors of the Emperors of Constantinople.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Misk that this is undue weight. I especially find the above quoted source specious at best. Featured articles require high quality sources. The author is an art historian and Numismatist, and the book is about ancient coinage. Hardly the best source to use. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not the only source shown, please check the list of sources using "Romania" for this state, posted a bit above. The following book even claims that "It represented a primary identification", and as far as I see, there is no evidence that this is just a minority view, especially since there are enough sources wirtten in English about this state, which also use this name, and I think a "featured article" should not avoid this information. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My point above could perhaps have used more clarification: I meant to say that "imperium Romaniae" denotes the Latin Empire as the empire established on the territory of the former Byzantine Empire rather than the Byzantine Empire itself. I do not know of any close connection with the modern state of Romania/Rumania, although the name would likely spring from the same source, as does the Italian "Romagna". I personally do not mind whether the non-English designations of the empire are listed in the lead or instead at some other place in the article, but I see little reason to question the widespread use of the term "Romania" among the Byzantines, which has been established by mainstream historiography. To quote a rather lengthy - but hopefully permissible - sample from R.L. Wolff, "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople", in Speculum 23:1 (1948), pp. 1-34 (Greek transliterated):

_{"Very soon after the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the west, the term 'Rhomanía' appears in the Byzantine sources in the meaning of 'territory of the Empire in the east.' While it is not to be found in Procopius, the contemporary chronographer John Malalas, who, it should be noted, wrote in popular language, so employs it. It appears also in a striking late-sixth-century inscription found in the present Stremska Mitrovska (the old Sirmium), at one time in the museum at Zagreb, which implores the Lord christ to smite the Avar and to protect 'Romania.' Thereafter the occurrences are frequent in Byzantine authors. Reference need perhaps be made only to Theophylact Simacattes, to the seventh-century text called the 'Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati,' to Theophanes, to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, to the tenth-century chronicle ascribed to Theodosius of Melitene, to the lost portions of the Excerpta of Constantine Porphyrogenitus as quoted by Suidas, to Skylitzes as preserved by Kedrenos, to Psellus' letters, to Anna Comnena, to the 'Strategicon' of Kekaumenos, and to the so-called 'Lógos Nouthetetikós' or admonition, addressed to Alexius Comnenus by a certain Nikoulitza. Despite this already steady appearance in the narrative historical sources, the word does not seem to have been used by the emperors themselves in their surviving official documents before the time of Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118). Thereafter however, its appearance in such documents is frequent."} (pp. 5-6) Iblardi (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cody if you think that the usage of "Romania" was actually a product of the minority of native Latin-speakers in Constantinople (who got extinct at a very early stage of the empire's history) you're horribly mistaken. The term in question is referring to the sporadic usage of the Greek "Ρωμανία" that is found in Byzantine and modern Greek primary sources to denote the Greek-speaking world. The term was not restricted to the borders of the Byzantine state or the Byzantine period per se and the proof of this is that the very same term was in usage in 19th century Greek literature in order to denote all Greek-speakers in the Ottoman Empire and outside it. At the same time, if you transliterate in english to "Romania", there is a huge confusion with the modern state of Romania. As far as I know - to add to the confusion - the only Latin usage of "ROMANIA" in primary sources was by and for the Latin Empire of Constantinople (to quote Lee Wolff's "ROMANIA: THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE" - "The name Romania was regularly given to the Latin Empire of Constantinople by its contemporaries"). So it can only bring confusion when you put it in bolt letters in the head of the BE article, it's a wrong context that makes wrong implications imho. So I'm just strongly against of it being abstractly used in the head in such a manner because it implies that it was or still is (not specified) a mainstream term in either English or Medieval Greek or something else, which is not the case, and eventhough it overlaps with a modern unrelated term there are no further explanations about it. I mean this is like making edits that are intended to be read and understood only by other wikipedians and not by the average reader who has no prior knowledge on the topic and is just bombarded with words that can mean 50 different things.
And just for the record, the name of modern Romania is in fact unrelated to the term in question (Ρωμανία) and the assumption that the origin of that country's name might somehow be related to the usage of the Greek Ρωμάνια or the Latin-speaking Roman elite of the 6th c. Constantinople, would be an extreme-minority-fringe view to say the least. Although irrelevant here I should mention that the hospodars and dragomans of the danubian principalities that you are referring to, are mostly related to the Phanariote Greek community of Constantinople, a community of largely ethnic modern Greeks or Hellenized individuals, again completely unrelated to the article 'Byzantine Empire' (this is modern history). The Phanariotes had a number of political functions in the Ottoman Empire and the Greek kingdom, and were by no means restricted to the rule of the Danubian principalities, yet they lost all their power after they masterminded the Greek war of independence. So really, I don't see the special connection to Romania or to its name. Miskin (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Although this is probably off-topic, regarding modern Romania, when I said above that modern Romania was not unrelated with this state, I was not actually referring to its name (although, I think it's obvious, that its name is related to the Roman Empire in some way), what I meant to say above was mainly that the administration, culture and religion of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were heavily influenced (before the Phanariot rule) by this empire (and some parts of southern modern Romania were also part of this state, especially the region of "Dobrogea", but for short periods parts of the territory of Wallachia were also included, and there is also a chronicle the Gesta Hungarorum which claims that a voivode called Menumorut from Tranyslvania in the 9th century was the vassal of the Emperor of Constantinople, I do not know if the chronicle is accurate about this, but there is also a mention in the 11th century, when the persian geographer Abu Said Gardezi wrote about a Christian people from Rûm being north of the danube, this is sourced here). The following books may also offer some informations about the influences this empire had on modern Romania,[76][77].Cody7777777 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cody stop edit-warring, I was about to move that edit to a different section but then I realised that it is already mentioned in the Nomenclature section! That section puts it into context and uses the correct transliteration for medieval Greek which is "Rhōmanía". So this is more than enough, no need to give it undue weight and controversial transliterations. Miskin (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you started this "edit-war". The name "Romania" for this state is not a minority view, as Iblardi also stated above, it "has been established by mainstream historiography". This book even states that it "represented a primary identification", a featured article should not omit this information. There are many sources written in English (and there were enough shown earlier above), which use "Romania" for this state, even if "Rhōmanía" is indeed translated incorrectly, as far as I see, "Romania" is the translation used in English most of the time (and actually, I haven't seen any evidence yet, that it is a controversial transliteration). Also, the following book that this term was used in both Latin and Greek, since the 4th century, the following also claims that ""Romania" was actually its name in both Latin and Greek" and it does not look to be of Greek origin, since the usual Greek word for "Roman" was "Rhômaios" (not "Rhômanos"). Also, I do not see how it can actually cause confusion, if it was mentioned at the start of the lead, it could have caused some confusion, but the lead starts as "The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire...", and that phrase in the lead simply states that this state was also called as "Romania", I don't think there is anything wrong with this context, and people usually read an encyclopedia to learn, and the mention of Romania was already there for a long period, without any claims of confusion arising, as far as I know. Also, the Latin Empire was called "Romania" because this state was also called as "Romania" (because west Europeans already used this term to refer to it, as the following also claims "still known to Western Europeans, "Latins" or "Franks" at the time, as Romania, already the name of the Empire in Late Antiquity.", the following book also claims that it was also a "Western term for the Byzantine (and also the Latin) Empire"), since it is mentioned in the lead of that article, it obviously should be mentioned in the lead of this article, as far as I see, more confusion could be caused, if it is mentioned there and is not also mentioned here. The fact that instead of "Romania" it was mentioned as "Romania" was already a compromise. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring; it doesn't matter who "started" it. I have a surprise for you: all the best scholarship does not exist on Google Books. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books is actually a source for scholarship, because it contains books written by scholars. All of the following sources use "Romania" for this state,[78][79],[80][81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88], [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112],[113][114][115][116] this is obviously a signifcant viewpoint and I have not seen yet a good reason to remove it, there was no evidence shown yet that this is an incorrect translation, I think it is obvious enough that removing it, is not an improvement of a featured article, so please stop edit-warring. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize how foolish you sound, correct? Not all books are indexed by Google, so asserting that a search of only its databases and available previews is justification for your edits (leaving aside an examination of the sources themselves) is questionable. Revert again and I will report you for WP:3RR. The challenged text (what you're adding) remains out of the FA until there is consensus to put it in. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally prefer quality to quantity in terms of references, but this argument doesn't make any sense. The fact that something doesn't appear on Google Books doesn't necessarily prove anything, for the reason you mention - not all books are on google books, and it's possible for things to fall through the cracks. However, if something does turn up in Google Books, I'm not sure why it should be excluded on the basis that there are other books that don't appear on Google Books. john k (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been reverting every single of my edits as if you WP:OWNed this article, I'm not the one who's edit-warring. I don't mean to not WP:AGF but after a point it becomes obvious that there's a personal agenda here on the (mis)usage of "Romania" in this article. As far as your sourcing goes, posting isolated quotes through string searching in a search engine isn't really the way sourcing and edits are made, and it's certainly not a good way to understand what's going on. The word "Ρωμανία" is transliterated to "Rhōmanía" as per wikipedia's standard transliteration practice for medieval and ancient Greek. Fact: It's from Greek not Latin, and has no connection whatsoever to Romania. This term is already mentioned in its own section and within the right context, and it's more than enough. Trying to plant in the article's head a dodgy alternative transliteration of something that's already treated is plain POV-pushins and editor consensus is against you. Miskin (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you do not own this article either, and you are also edit-warring (you actually started it). I do not see any consensus to remove it, there seems to be only two users who opposed that mention at the moment, that cannot make a consensus, and It should also be noted that user:Iblardi and user:Varana in their earlier statements, also seem to have agreed with its inclusion. In the early period Latin was also used in the empire, and there are sources shown above which explicitly claim it was used in both Latin and Greek, but the English equivalent of the word, is "Romania" (and except the list of sources shown above, the following book published by the Cambridge University also uses the translation "Romania"), and since this is the English Wikipedia, we should use english translations (and even if this is indeed a wrong translation, as far as I see, there are no sources at the moment which support this point of view). As for personal agendas, as I said before, that statement was not actually added by me there, it was there before I even started editing on Wikipedia, and obviously I did not invented all of these sources written in English which use "Romania". And I do not want to not WP:AGF, but to be honest, removing that statement starts to look like disruptive editing, since it is supported by enough sources (and indeed, Google Books does not have all the books indexed in their databases, but that doesn't prove it is a minority view, and it obviously still provides access to many books written by scholars, and you also do not have acess to all books either, to claim that this is a minority view or a fringe theory). However, although, I doubt it is really necessary, I will also add a note with some explanations near that term. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

section break

Cody, this matter is far from settled. There is no consensus to add the text, and the burden falls on you; controversial text gets removed from FAs by default. Responding here and then reverting to your version "per talk" will not fly; it's tendentious editing, and can get you blocked. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but removing sourced statements is disruptive editing, please stop. And as far as I see, there is no evidence that the text is controversial, it is also supported by many sources (some of which were published by the Cambridge University,[117][118][119][120][121]). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the one adding sources to a Featured Article. The onus is on you to okay content before it gets added. I don't want to take this to WP:ANI, but I will if necessary. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Claiming it is controversial (even if that would indeed be true) without bringing several sources which support that it is controversial, can be considered Original Research (especially when there are already sources which support it). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you bothered to read the talk page archives as the big notice at the top of the talk page says, you would see that whether to include Romania in the lead has already been discussed previously; there's a reason it's not there before. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have watched through the archives, and I have not seen any discussion which decided to not include "Romania" in the lead, and as far as I know, that mention of "Romania" was already there for at least, an year (probably more). But nonetheless, as far as I see, that mention is supported by many sources. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

←Perhaps it can be mentioned somewhere else in the article besides the lead? While it doesn't appear to be a particularly popular name, the sources Cody has presented are at least somewhat credible. Just a thought. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing I dislike more on Wikipedia than the same article appearing over and over again on my watchlist. It's just so irritating, you know? Now that I am annoyed, I have protected the page. Majoreditor's idea is probably the best solution; as usual a dispute can be solved simply by sticking the information somewhere else. (I would have suggested a different place, but that's just inappropriate.) So, figure something out, and we'll unprotect the page. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The obvious place would be the "Nomenclature" section; the Greek variant "Rhômanía" is already there. Varana (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The following book published by the Oxford University Press also claims that the empire was called "Romania". The following book published by the Cambridge University Press states that it "represented a primary identification", the following books[122],[123][124][125][126][127] also published by the "Cambridge University Press" use "Romania" to refer to this state. The following book by John Bagnall Bury also uses "Romania". The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor also uses "Romania" often. The name "Romania" for this empire is also mentioned in the following[128][129][130][131][132][133][134],[135][136],[137],[138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166],[167][168][169]. This view is obviously not a fringe theory, as far as I see, it is a significant viewpoint, WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints". And that mention of "Romania" was there in the lead for nearly two years (it appears it was added there by user:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ). I don't see what is the problem with informing the readers of Wikipedia about the use of this name, and it is also mentioned in the lead of the Latin Empire article, if it is mentioned there and not mentioned here, it could cause some confusion. Even if it is a wrong translation, I have not seen any sources yet supporting this point of view (and books published both by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press use this translation). It was initially mentioned as "Romania", but as a compromise it was mentioned as "Romania" and a note with some explanations also added. We could discuss different explanations in the note, but I don't see how removing it from the lead, is an improvement of a featured article. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead already lists four different names, which is close to excess. Considering that this is an FA-class article I hop ethat the lead can focus primarily on describing the history and significance of the Empire rather than function as a codex for all of its alternative names. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All of that should go to the nomenclature section. The nomenclature section might not be appropriate as the first section after the lead, but all the info about names should go in it wherever it is. The lead of the article currently doesn't really tell me anything about the Byzantine Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It must be understood here that the dispute is not about the validity of the information but about the quality and weight of the transliteration. The sporadic usage of the term "Rhōmanía" in Greek texts is factual and is already treated in the article's body (nomenclature section). What Cody wants is to make a repetition in the article's lead by using a different nonmainstream and kindof POV-forked transliteration, i.e. "Romania" rather than "Rhōmanía". So this is not about whether or not to include an alternative viewpoint (since whether the correct greek-to-english transliteration is "Rhōmanía" or "Romania" is not a viewpoint but a fact about a common practice). There is a perfectly good and detailed explanation in the nomenclature section, which uses the right transliteration in the right context. I don't understand why there should be rubbish information injected in the head of the article just because one editor is obsessing over it... Over something that's of no importance to the history of the Empire whatsoever. It's only important in Cody's own mind who thinks that it is somehow a link between ancient Rome to Romania (which was not a part of the Eastern Roman Empire to begin with). Miskin (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you do not really know what I think (I only claimed earlier that the two states were not entirely unrelated, I was not talking there about the names of the two states), and the term "Romania" as a name of this state, was not initially added by me there (it was added by user:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ), and it was there for nearly two years, until you started recently to remove it. Also, as far as I see, the mainstream translation used for this term in English is "Romania" in many English sources, and obviously the sources which were published by the Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press are not "rubbish information", and currently the claim that this is not a mainstream or an incorrect translation is actually your POV, and you can obviously believe that if you like, but this point of view is currently not sourced. The fact that it was mentioned as "Romania" (instead of "Romania") with a note, was already a compromise. And as far as I know, the lead among other things is supposed to also explain how this state was called by its inhabitants, and I have to say that I can't see how removing "Romania" from the lead will make the lead focus more on history (the use of this name was in fact part of its history). (Also, mentioning it in both the lead and the nomenclature, is not repetition, because the lead is an overview of the article, the nomenclature should provide more explanations about these names, but that doesn't mean the lead should not mention these names.) We could of course, also discuss other improvements or changes in the lead, but removing the names used by its people (respectively "Roman Empire" (or "Empire of the Romans") and "Romania") does not look like an improvement of the lead. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, Cody, would it be acceptable if all the nomenclature was removed from the lead? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, the names used by its people should also be mentioned in the lead, there's not really too much space taken with that phrase. Regarding, other names, those used by other nations (excluding the modern historiographical terms, of course), I have no problem if they are mentioned instead in the nomenclature section. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I support Cody (how many 7's is it?) 100% in this debate. The evidence is overwhelming that the ordinary Byzantines called their country Romania. It is therefore absurd to omit this information from the Lead and Nomenclature sections. In addition, I propose it should be aqdded to the infobox as well. EraNavigator (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

EraNavigator read my last post please. To quote myself: "The sporadic usage of the term "Rhōmanía" in Greek texts is factual and is already treated in the article's body (nomenclature section)." No matter what it is claimed, this is not a standard transliteration from Greek not for this term and not in general. If we had to choose between "Romania" and "Rhōmanía" to put one in the lead and another in the body I really don't see for what NPOV reasons we should give priority over the former which is not even IPA. The fact that it appears in a handful of sources doesn't mean that it is a standard term in modern English. There is another handful of sources cited about which uses the spelling "Romania" for the Latin Empire of Constantinople, hence per NPOV this is controversial and doesn certainly not belong in the lead. If you want to replace "Romania" with "Rhōmanía" in the lead that would solve the problem for me but I got reverted there too. In fact I'm annoyed by Cody's attitude which implies ownership claims over this article. So I'm glad that there's more people involved in this. And yeah maybe it's a best solution to keep most of the names in the nomenclature section, the phrase with the arabic name and writing for example in the opening paragraph is just out of context. At least the terms "Easter Roman Empire" and "Empire of the Greeks" are mentioned even in Britannica for being standard terms for most languages until say the 19th century, so that was enough proof of their merit.

And imho "Romania" deserves no mention in no section. When you read "Romania" you actually read and pronounce Romania which can refer to 10 different things. If you want to read Ρωμανία you have to spell "Rhōmanía". Miskin (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, this is the English Wikipedia, we need to use English equivalents/translations. "Rhōmanía" while it is the transliteration in Latin alphabet of the Greek word "Ρωμανία", it is not the Enlgish translation used in most sources. As far as I see, most of the sources written in English (including those published by the Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press), translate it as "Romania" (regardless if that is correct or not, this is the way it has been translated). (And you do not own this article either.) Cody7777777 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's just use the best sources here. It doesn't really matter if the book is published by OUP or CUP; is it directly relevant to the article? If not then all you have done is compiled a list of possibly irrelevant books, and worse you have done it using only Google Books. We are looking for quality, not quantity. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of them, referred to the topic of this article. I'll cite some of them, "The Cambridge illustrated history of the Middle Ages" ISBN 9780521266444 (published by Cambridge University Press), states that "The history of the Roman empire in the East now properly begins: the history, that is of Romania as it called itself.", "Hellenism in Byzantium: the transformations of Greek identity and the reception of the classical tradition" ISBN 9780521876889 (also published by CUP, and which is also already cited somewhere in the article) states that Romania "represented a primary identification", "The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180" ISBN 9780521526531 (also published by CUP) claims "The people who identified with the empire called themselves Romaioi and the land they inhabited Romania", the "The history of government from the earliest times, Volume 2" ISBN 9780198207900 (published by the Oxford University Press), in its chapter about this state, claims that its people "if they called the empire anything at all they called it Romania.", "The Roman Empire and its Germanic peoples" (published "University of California Press") ISBN 9780520085114 claims that inhabitants of this state "referred to themselves as Romaioi and their country as Romania". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To throw in another opinion, I don't have a strong preference for which spelling is used, but, since it is one spelling that is common and it does more intuitively demonstrate the origin of the name, I would tend to go with "Romania" (by the same argument why does U-boat not use U-boot or Unterseeboot everywhere).

Regarding the larger debate about what names should be mentioned, I will acknowledge the viewpoint that you should not try to include every single name by which a given entity has been called in the intro. Saving detailed discussions about naming for a later section is worthwhile. The intro should not discuss naming just for the sake of discussing naming.

Nevertheless sometimes there is merit in discussing what in other contexts might be relatively trivial details within the introduction. Because the Byzantine label was a much later label which is misleading to the uninitiated a brief mention of some other names actually does have value. That Ρωμανία was commonly used in the Empire and "Romania" is used in academic circles cannot be questioned. Whether or not we include all 3 ("Roman Empire," "Empire of the Romans," and "Romania") in the intro is debatable but I think a brief mention of the specific name "Romania" is valuable because of the name's connections to other states in history (a good intro is not only informative but stimulates interest in the topic and related topics).

I would personally support Cody7777777 in keeping "Romania" in the lead. The suggestion that the recent discussion about the use of this name which has been on the page for a long time suddenly makes it controversial and inappropriate seems gratuitous to me.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To tell the truth, if I were going to remove anything I would remove "Empire of the Romans" since the distinction between that and "Roman Empire" is too subtle to merit inclusion in the lead (the average reader won't know the background as to why that subtlety matters). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, "Roman Empire" is also mentioned, "Empire of the Romans" could be removed from the lead. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to remove the who lot of them from the lead. The introduction should encapsulate the main ideas in the article rather than serve as a laundry list of various names. Let's use the nomeclature section for that. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there are plenty of sources that use Romania. I'm also confused by Miskin's insistence that the proper form is "Rhōmania". This may be the strictest transliteration, but I see no particular reason why the Greek Rho needs to be transliterated "Rh" rather than "R," or why we need to include the diacritical for the Omega. "Romania" is the obvious English Latinization of the Greek Ρωμανία, as we can see from the fact that there appear to be a ton of sources that use it as such. If anything should be removed, it is "Rhōmania." We should give the Greek form, and the common Latinization, not some strict transliteration which is rarely used. In the intro, I think it would make sense to introduce "Eastern Roman Empire" and "Romania" as alternate names. Like Cody, I don't see that "Empire of the Romans" deserves to be mentioned at all - it is a literal translation of a common Greek form, not a name widely used in English. I fail to understand why that name, along with names once used by foreigners (Rûm, Greek Empire), but almost never used in modern scholarship, should have a place in the introduction but "Romania," the most commonly used name by the inhabitants and one actually found in modern scholarly works, should be excluded. john k (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, and although we have had plenty of bitter discussions about the spelling of emperor's names, we would never write, for example, "Rhomanos IV Diogenes". (And at the moment we also have an article about "Michael I Rangabe" which is hardly a scientific transliteration.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. This "Rh" transliteration for "rho" goes a bit too far. Same goes for the diacritics. Dr.K. logos 20:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Byzantine Emperors' names in wikipedia used to be written in the OCD (Oxford classical dictionary) transliteration system until some years ago when it was proposed and decided to switch to ODB (Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium). For those who ask why "Rh" should be used instead of "R" the answer is simple: For transliterations of any kind of Greek terms such as Ρωμάνια, ODB-derived systems are the standard in nearly all academic sources including Britannica, the Oxford family of dictionaries, the Perseus project and even the Library of Congress [170], and actually so does wikipedia. And if all this is not enough you can consider the fact that 'Romania' is also in common use in English for Romania, whereas Rhomania can only mean one thing and avoids any kind of confusion. This is not the case with the names of the Byzantine Emperors whose transliterations are taken directly from primary sources and have been standardised in English for a very long time. Choosing to spell it 'Romania' would go against both wikipedia's and the academic community's common practice [171]. The claim that the spelling "Romania" has standard use in academic sources is false and running a search in google books is no serious sourcing. A reader of such a book which might be using terms such as "Greeks" to describe the "Byzantines" and mention that "Romania" was used in Greek for "Byzantium" will understand much better what is meant by those terms than a person who sees the misleading Romania in the lead of wikipedia's article. In other words this is not a transliteration for encyclopedic practice, it's just an abstract and oversimplified (and in this case misleading) way to convert Greek characters to Latin. Wikipedia's lead is not about abstract statements, it's meant to be the mission statement of the article. And this is why it should use the scientific over the dubious terminology, at least for a term which is controversial and in the lead. And for those editors who insist on saying that the information should be included, please, understand that the debate is not on whether or not it should be included but about how it should be written and presented. Miskin (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, two points. Firstly, the fact that "Romania" is ambiguous is a total red herring - we use ambiguous names for things all the time. The fact that there is an alternative, lesser used, form which is unambiguous is completely irrelevant. Second, what is the basis for the claim that "Rhomania" is the ODB transliteration? My understanding is that the ODB uses "Romanos" for the Byzantine emperors of that name. Why would Ρωμανός become "Romanos" but Ρωμάνια becomes "Rhomania"? There are almost no google books or google scholar hits for "Rhomania," and some of the ones that do appear seem to refer to some sort of American sorority events. Cody has provided a substantial number of sources that use "Romania." On Google proper, even excluding "wikipedia" from the search terms, a substantial percentage of the first page results for "Rhomania" appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Anecdotally, without being able to provide much in the way of new sources, I have seen "Romania" a fair bit as the Romanization/translation of the Greek Ρωμάνια. I have never seen Rhomania, and online searches do not suggest the term is commonly used. You need to provide some evidence that "Rhomania" is the commonly used translation of Ρωμάνια. john k (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Romanos" has been written in Latin letters for over 2000 years, it's not a transliteration. Transliterations have official standards. As for "Romania" being a Red Herring, I have also provided sources that state that the Latinised "Romania", just like Cody wants, referred by its contemporaries to the Empire of Constantinople. There's even a book entitled "ROMANIA: THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE", and you can find that in google books too quoting, "The name Romania was regularly given to the Latin Empire of Constantinople by its contemporaries". From the The New Cambridge Medieval History, "The western or Latin conquest of Constantinople on 13 April 1204 heralded a new Era in the history of Byzantine lands known in the west as Romania". Or from The two cities: medieval Europe, 1050-1320, "Baldwin of Flanders was elected emperor at Constantinople to preside over what was to become known as the Empire of Romania" or from Studies on Latin Greece, "On the use of the term "Romania" see especially Robert Lee Wolff, "Romania: the Latin Empire of Constantinople,", or The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254: sources and documents (2008), "...At the council of Lyons it had been decreed that financial aid should be mustered for the beleaguered Latin Empire of Constantinople ('Romania')". You can find all those and more in google too if you search string the way it was done earlier. What can I say, if you still think it's that obvious, just use Romania with bolt in the lead and assume that every wikipedia reader is a historian. Miskin (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Romania" was used for the Latin Empire because the Crusaders viewed the Latin Empire as the continuation of the Byzantine Empire, which was called Romania by its inhabitants. The New Cambridge Medieval History quote you produce suggests this very thing - that the Byzantine lands were known in the west as Romania, which is why the crusaders referred to their state in the Byzantine lands by that name. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "Romanos" for 2000 years. The standard Latinization/Romanization of Ρωμανός, so far as I understand it, was "Romanus," and the first individual I'm aware of to bear that name is Romanos Lekapenos (there may be earlier examples, but I don't know of any). At any rate, the fact that "Romania" was used for the Latin Empire doesn't mean it wasn't used for the Byzantine Empire. And you have yet to produce any evidence that anyone much uses "Rhomania." john k (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

First: "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" has no hits either but we used it, this and all the countless of terms that are being transliterated in wikipedia every day (without sources). Second: Romanos probably dates as a name since the Roman conquest of Greece, something irrelevant here anyway. Miskin (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I proved to you that Romania was and is still being used for the Latin Empire of Constantinople. So that at least proves that it's not as straight-forward and standardised as you claim and can be ambiguous. I haven't found any encyclopedic mentions of Rhomania-Romania except the one instance above which uses it (again) for the Latin Empire. But I have offered you sources about ODB as well as the library of congress' standard transliteration of Greek. If despite all the references on the Latin Empire that you just ignored, you still think that "Romania" is liable for encyclopedic usage in the article's lead then go ahead. You'll be just leaving an open chapter that will undouble be the source of more disputes in the future. Miskin (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point of Miskin's arguments, since he too agrees that the term was widely used, but I am more than surprised about what he claims on the ODB. The ODB uses the form "Romania" explicitly (Vol. III, p. 1805): "Romania, Latin term that appeared in the 4th century to designate the Roman Empire..." The term itself is apparently of Latin origin, and Ρωμανία is the Greek transcription, ergo Romania is perfectly acceptable. Constantine ✍ 08:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You said it yourself, the Roman Empire, not the Byzantine Empire. Clearly not the same context as implied here on the Greek usage which became popular in the late Byzantine period. My argument is that "Romania" today would not be used in encyclopedic usage or in the title of a book such as "Empire of Romania" instead of Byzantium, like the "Latin Empire of Romania" cited above. And by putting this term in the lead of the article en par with "Byzantine Empire" this is what you're implying. All I'm asking from you is to move this thing in the nomenclature section where it will have a context along with all other terms, OR if you think that it's so crucial to mention in the lead then use the transliterated term there. The transliterated term is already being used in the nonmenclature section. Is this so much to ask? I mean you must see that there is some level of ambiguity here, right? I mean seriously, is this worth edit-warring and ganging an editor over it? The ambiguity here is factual and I'm only trying to fix it by rearranging things, and look where it has gotten to. Miskin (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me put the main points of the ODB entry here to clarify things a bit re Romans & Byzantines: "Romania, Latin term that appeared in the 4th century to designate the Roman Empire, esp. in contrast with the barbarian world. In the East the Greek term is known from the 6th cent... In Greek the term Romania ([sic]) also denoted the empire. This "universal" meaning was lost in the West... After 1080, Westerners Used Romania for either the Empire, in accordance with Byz. tradition, or Rum, in accordance with Muslim usage. In 1204, the name Romania was given to the Latin Empire. As a result, the Byz. virtually stopped using it in official documents, although there were exceptions... Stefan Dusan also adopted it, styling himself "Emperor and Autocrat of Serbia and Romania"." It is clear (even without the ton of sources Cody provided) that the term was used as a primary identifier by the Byzantines themselves, and even by the Westerners for the Byzantines. If we move this to the nomenclature section, then all names except "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" ought to be moved there as well (personally, I'd be OK with that). The term Romania attests to a direct continuity between the late Roman Empire and the Byzantines, and is therefore important. As for the edit-warring, I agree it is pointless, but when you are putting forth false claims, please don't blame others when they contest them... Scholarly usage definitely supports the form "Romania", and as for the ambiguity, that is why encyclopedias are for, to clear them up. No one is proposing that we move the article to Romania anyhow, just adding its own, native name in the lead. Constantine ✍ 09:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"False claims"? All those sources above that speak of the "Latin Empire of Romania" and the usage of "Romania" in both English and primary sources to refer to the Empire alone are "false claims"? The transliteration practices of wikipedia that can be seen in the very first line of this article are "false claims"? Why are we using "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn", does that have any hits in google? Is that false claims or double standard logic? I never spoke of the article of the dictionary, I was referring to the ODB transliteration system, do you even know what is meant by that? You clearly haven't read or understood much of what I've been saying, and I'm not going to repeat them. So if you don't understand, please don't judge. To stay in topic and make the long story short:

• Nobody disputes that the untranslated Ρωμανια had at some period on another popular use in Byzantine Greek.
• However it was demonstrated that the spelling "Romania" is often used in both Latin primary sources and modern English sources for the Latin Empire of Constantinople.

So the debate is how the Greek should this be explained/presented in this article. I believe that the spelling "Romania" is for all the above reasons too ambiguous to be used in the lead of an encyclopedia article. Its usage its controversial because many of the sources are conflicting here albeit it can have many meanings in both modern English and medieval primary sources. The only language in which is not ambiguous it's medieval Greek. So what I'm proposing is to either:

• use the Rhōmania (Greek: Ῥωμανία) in the lead en par with Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn and move "Romania" in the nomenclature where more explanations can be given (if you think it's THAT important spelling for Byzantium to be left out).
• use nothing in the lead and keep both or one of the spellings the nomenclature section

Personally I don't care what you do with the rest of the names. All I'm asking is that the undisputedly ambiguous spelling "Romania" doesn't go in the lead, what seems to me like a common sense improvement. Miskin (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, I have no interest to quarrel with you, but you referred to the ODB to support your claims, when the ODB mentions and does the exact opposite thing. Since apparently you have access to the ODB, I perceived that as a falsehood, and that is why I intervened in this discussion. I really don't care much about either spelling, but IMO "Romania" would be perfectly fine provided the context is properly explained. As for the "Basileia ton Rhomaion", I happen to agree with you. I haven't been able to find it anywhere else, only arche Rhomaion, politeia Rhomaion, etc. Some source ought to be found for this one... Regards, Constantine ✍ 10:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to ODB atm which is why I was only referring to its transliteration system. What you quoted does not imply the opposite of what I said, it does at least support me on the fact that the spelling Romania is too ambiguous. Other sources however, state directly that this spelling is reserved for the Latin Empire. "Basileia ton Rhomaion" is in fact correct according common wikipedia practice. Even if it doesn't have google hits or wide usage, it uses an existing and standardised transliteration system that wikipedia uses alot. I was only asking to do the same for Ρωμανια at least for the article's lead. In the nomenclature section there might be any spelling you can image, I'm just talking about the lead. I'm really surprised that I meet such fierce resistance for such a blatant correction of ambiguity which doesn't even remove any existing information. Miskin (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As John Kenney has already noted, you still don't have evidence that the academic community uses (today) "Rhōmanía" more often than "Romania" (in fact it, it seems the "Rh" version is very rarely used), even if you may have evidence that they should indeed use it that way (and that it is also used for the Latin Empire), as far as I see there is enough evidence that most of the academic community decided to translate "Ρωμάνια" as "Romania" (regardless what transliteration they should've used). (And actually there are still no sources which claim that "Romania" is a controversial transliteration for "Ρωμανία".) And as Constantine stated, "Ρωμανία is the Greek transcription" of the Latin Romania. So since "Ρωμάνια" is from Latin "Romania", I don't see too many reasons to transliterate it back in Latin alphabet as "Rhōmanía". Also "Romania" was used for the Latin Empire because the (Latin) west already also referred to this state using Romania (the following books[172][173][174][175][176][177] prove that the west also used "Romania" to refer to both the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Latin Empire, so I think it is obvious that the west did not used in the past, the form "Romania" only for the Latin Empire), so mentioning "Romania" in the lead of the Latin Empire article and not mentioning here, does not make really too much sense in my opinion, and it can in fact it could cause more confusion if it is mentioned there and not also here. And as far as I know, "Romania" was used in Latin alphabet like this for centuries, and most modern English sources (regardless if that is correct or not) also use "Romania" for "Ρωμάνια". And actually before it was removed the last time, it was mentioned in the article as "Romania (

Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía)" I don't see any confusion about it (especially since, the lead of the article does not start with that term), and as far as I see, the fact that the strict transliteration (which is not used often) was also mentioned in parentheses, was already more than enough. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Miskin, one of your sources says "The western or Latin conquest of Constantinople on 13 April 1204 heralded a new Era in the history of Byzantine lands known in the west as Romania"; haven't you just disproved your own argument? Also, Cody, can you please stop posting all these links to Google books over and over again? I really don't think it's necessary at this point. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam this just shows the ambiguity of the term in that spelling. The logic used by the supporters of 'Romania' has gaps and double standards. Someone asked where are my sources for ( Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía), but I didn't come up with that term, that term was ALREADY in the article. If that spelling is so wrong then why on earth didn't anyone ever bother to remove it or ask for any sources before I brought it up? The only thing I did was to wonder why they are not using the term from nomenclature in the lead but instead use a term which is ambiguous in all languages except medieval Greek. In addition, it is common practice in wikipedia to use the names in the original language followed by a transliteration, and this doesn't have to have hits in google; it's acceptable as long as the transliteration system is not original research. This practice is also followed in this very article on the very first sentence (!) with Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn, as well as in the article's template (!!!) So per what rational argumentation should Ῥωμανία be presented any differently on the same sentence? Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn has no hits in Google, yet 'basileia ton romaion' does too, so this is exactly the same case. I'm being jumped at as if I'm trying to have a POV term inserted in the article when all I've been doing was to point out the obvious by using the article's own information and the general wikipedia practice. That and to provide some sources on the undisputed ambiguity of the Latin-written Romania, notably its connection to the Latin Empire; something that in my opinion makes the term inadequate for encyclopedic usage in a context such as the article's lead - en par with the article's name. Miskin (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" was not actually mentioned alone, it was mentioned in the article lead as "the Empire of the Romans (Greek:

Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn)". And, it was suggested earlier to remove this mention from the lead. (Also, a (strict) transliteration in Latin alphabet, is not always the English equivalent/translation. For example, the transliteration in Latin alphabet of the expression in Greek alphabet, "Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων" is "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" (which is in fact still a Greek expression with Latin characters), but the English equivalent/translation is "Empire of the Romans", in the lead, English translations are usually preferred, at least when they are avaible). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think most of Miskin's points have already been addressed by others, but one more time: the fact that "Romania" is ambiguous is not a reason to avoid it. The vast majority of names are ambiguous. If they are the most commonly used form, they should be mentioned, and their being ambiguous is not a reason not to mention them. john k (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss how we're going to change the lead. I would propose the following as the beginning of the lead: "The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, Basileía Rhōmaíōn) and as Romania ( Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía),...". Regarding, "Empire of the Greeks" and "Rûm", as already suggersted earlier, they can be moved to the nomenclature section. Other suggestions? Cody7777777 (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well,after the Western Roman Empire collapsed, the Eastern Roman Empire was not just known to its inhabitants as Roman Empire, but it actually was all of the Roman Empire! We could mention that later on, though, along with mentioning that "Byzantine" is a later historiographic term that had never been used by the Empire itself or its contemporaries to identify the Empire. Why don't why rename the article to Roman Empire (330-1453) or something? We could then mention something like "The Roman Empire (330-1453), better known with the historiographic term "Byzantine Empire", also known as "Romania" by its inhabitants...". Of course, "Byzantine" is far more well-known to the world today and probably is the best title for the article. But I'm just making a suggestion here...--Michael X the White (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would be a good suggestion. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion above: don't leave out τῶν, it really belongs there. Apart from that, I think that's a good suggestion.

But below: Please, no, not that again. "Byzantine Empire" is the established term, overwhelmingly used, and that's where the article should be. The Empire is history. Gone. Has been for quite some time now. People have found a way to refer to this state in a non-ambiguous way, and they do it all the time. Varana (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem, if the "τῶν" ("tôn") is added, but I excluded it earlier, because I had the impression that "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" was usually translated as "Empire of the Romans", while "Basileía Rhōmaíōn" could be translated as "Roman Empire". (Regarding, the renaming, I don't really want to insist on that issue now, but I'll cite something from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive ("Byzantine Empire" in this case). In those cases use widely known alternatives ("Eastern Roman Empire" in this case).".) Cody7777777 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

τῶν is the Greek definite article, which is (virtually) always put here. "Basileía Rhômaíôn" is "Empire of Romans" ("Rhômaíôn" is plural Genitive); "Roman Empire" would be "Rhômaikê Basileía".

Err, who should be offended? Not the Byzantines - while alive, no-one called them that name, and now they're dead, so we can't ask. ;) And they're the only ones who would matter in this case. Varana (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case the "τῶν" ("tôn") should obviously be included (for some reason, in earlier versions it wasn't used). (And regarding the "offensive" term, there are actually some (modern) sources which claim that "Byzantine" is incorrect for this state.) Cody7777777 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

After 800, there was another entity claiming to be the (Western) Roman Empire. And I don't think Byzantium is ever called simply "the Roman Empire." I think Cody's suggested wording looks good. john k (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" and "Basileía Rhōmaíōn" is exactly the same thing. In highly inflected languages like Greek the meaning isn't altered if the article is neglected. But I think including tôn is more realistic for medieval times. Strictly speaking "basileia" means "Kingdom" or "monarchy", while the term restricted for "Empire" was αυτοκρατορία. I agree 100% with John Kenney above. What I don't agree to is the statement "The empire was mostly referred to as 'Romania' to its people". When reading out loud the english world "Romania" it comes out a completely different word from the Greek "Rhōmanía". I'm not sure how the authors who make this claim pronounce that word but I'm 99% sure that it's not being pronounced by the reader the way the author intended it. That's why I'm against using it in the lead. Miskin (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

How about this for a compromise? None of the information is lost, but it is organized in a more logically coherent way (and with some minor editing for readability). For the introduction:

The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered on the capital of Constantinople, and ruled by Emperors in direct succession to the ancient Roman Emperors.

(The rest remains the way it is, as I happen to have protected it. This leaves out any attempt to give native names - I'm sure this goes against some sort of policy, but since the English name has nothing to do with the native name, I think we can ignore that. We can say "See nomenclature section below" if necessary.)

Then the Nomenclature section:

The Empire was known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire, the Empire of the Romans (Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn) and also as Romania ( Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía) or Rhōmaís ( Ῥωμαΐς)..

The Empire preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions, but due to the increasing predominance of the Greek language, it was usually known to most of its western and northern contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks. In the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm "Rome").

The term "Byzantine Empire" is an invention of historians and was never used during the Empire's lifetime. The term "Byzantine" itself comes from "Byzantium", the name of the city of Constantinople before it became the capital of Constantine. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts.

(The rest remains the same, which was not under dispute anyway.)

Is this acceptable? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. john k (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but regarding the lead, since "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are modern historiographical terms, I believe the lead should also mention how its inhabitants called it. (I don't think too much space of the lead is taken with this mention.) Another possibility could also be "The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered on the capital of Constantinople, and ruled by Emperors in direct succession to the ancient Roman Emperors. It was known to its inhabitants as Romania (Greek:

Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía).", although I would still prefer the lead to start as in the earlier proposal. The rest of your proposal is acceptable for me. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's proposal looks good to me. If we include Ῥωμανία, we must also have Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, as that is the more official name of the state. However, I think that removing the contested names from the lead and discussing them more extensively in their respective section is the best compromise (even if it's kind of "if you can't agree on how to part the cake, no one gets any cake" compromise ;)). Varana (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Basileia ton Romaion actually is "Roman Empire" and not "Empire of the Romans". The phrase "Romaiki Basileia" just can't be used and is a little... illiterate. Basileia, you see, does not have the sense of "Empire", but it is rather closer to "rule". Also, in Greek, youd tend to refer to the people than the state when it's to titles. For example, you'd say "Municipality of the Athenians" rather than "Munnicipality of Athens" (which would be the correct English translation). I prefer Cody's suggestion, and I do not really like the part about "known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire", just because it was known to all of the world as Roman Empire, at least up to the 11th century.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Rhomaikê" wouldn't have been used - that was meant to demonstrate where Cody's suggestion of omitting "tôn" to produce "Roman Empire" was wrong, not as a suggestion how the Empire was or would have been called; I should have made that more clear. As to "all the world", that's discussed in the footnote. We could change "inhabitants" to "contemporaries", but then we'd contradict the footnote mentioning other names. Varana (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about "τῶν". In my opinion, it's better to include both of them ("Romania" and "Roman Empire/Empire of the Romans"), rather than not mentioning the names used by its inhabitants in the lead (we should avoid giving any impression in the lead that "Byzantine Empire" was used by its people.) (And it should also be noted that, some of the sources mentioned above earlier, when talking about the names used by its inhabitants, apparently preferred to mention just the more popular Romania.) Cody7777777 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Adam's proposal. Keep the lead simple and have the details reside in the Nomenclature section. The lead should list Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire, since these are by far the most common terms used in modern times. Majoreditor (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" were not used by its inhabitants or contemporaries, also mentioning about how it was called by its people, as far as I see, will not really cause any problem to the introduction (in my opinion, it will actually be an improvement, and as far as I know, such information it's not usually omitted from the intro). Regarding, the "Empire of the Greeks" and "Rûm" (and other detailed explanations), I agree it is better to move them in the Nomenclature section. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of nomenclature, since there's several hundred years of history of this entity before Greek became the official language, shouldn't the Latin names be mentioned as well as the Greek ones? john k (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Latin names should also be mentinoed in the Nomenclature section. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Byzantine Empire, also known as Eastern Roman Empire or simply Roman Empire before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire during late antiquity and the Middle-Ages, centred on the capital of Constantinople, ruled by Emperors in direct succession to the ancient Roman Emperors. It was also known to the inhabitants of the Empire as Romania(Greek: Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía)." I agree that the Latin names should be included in the Nomenclature section, which would pretty much include all other names and of course reference to the fact that "Byzantine" is a historiographical term to differentiate from the period that the Empire was centred on the capital of Rome rather than the capital of Constantinople (old Byzantium).--Michael X the White (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion looks good, in my opinion. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone really call it just the "Roman Empire", aside from Gibbon? I think it would be better with something like "Its inhabitants knew it as the Roman Empire, or Romania in Greek." But otherwise, if no one is opposed to having both Romania and Rhomania in the lead (Miskin? Where has Miskin gone?), this should be acceptable. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to give "Rhomania" at all. We don't say that Romanus I's name in Greek was Rhomanos I Lekapenos. It's just a way to defamiliarize the name because Miskin doesn't like it. john k (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not see the difference between Romania and Rhomania really... I actually do not see the need of the "h" (since it never existed there). Anyway, we should call a spade a spade. We have the most popular, historiographic name (Byzantine) and then we include the actual, official name (Roman Empire), what the locals called it (Romania) and then we add what other people called it in "Nomenclature".In't that ok?--Michael X the White (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, it is ok. (And regarding the strict "Rh" transliteration, although its mention does not seem to be really necessary, I have no problem if it is also included in parentheses as proposed earlier in "Romania (Greek:

Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía)".) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This has become too complicated. For what my opinion matters, I'm either for Adam's version or the current version (without the Arabic maybe) but none of the other things proposed. John k it's just sad that you still haven't understood what I've been talking about. Rhōmanía was not my invention, it was already in the nomenclature section while the same transliteration Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn was used in the very lead of the article as well as its template. "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" has no google hits as opposed to "basileia ton romaion", yet the former, transliterated version is the one used in the article. So I logically thought why should there be a different approach with "Romania" versus "Rhōmanía" which comes in the same line?? This is not understanding maths, it's common sense.
As a last note, despite all that it is claimed, "Romania" is simply a wrong way to spell ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ. I know well how the English spelling "Romania" is pronounced and as a native Greek-speaker (with origin from Istanbul in fact) I know very well how ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ, a term which had popular use in Greek up until the 20st century, is meant to be pronounced in English. And they're far from the same... mostly due to the fact that the "default" accentuation of "Romania" leads to a disturbingly different term. The authors who have used "Romania" in literature have simply done it in order not to complicate things with transliterations and non-ASCII characters. Blatantly, the reader doesn't pronounce the word as the author intended it, but that's OK since that is not so important in the book's context. But wikipedia has common practice to use transliterations and in its encyclopedic context, it is important. But oh well, what do I know, nowadays I'm just a sporadic editor and after this dispute I'll probably fall into hybernation again. I'm sure Cody and some of the other guys know better what's best for the article. And for the Byzantine Empire. Peace at home, peace in the world. Miskin (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much,"Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" is probably the correct pronounciation in English, but it simply is not English. We have the Greek spelling Βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων already, and I do not see any reason to just transliterate it to the Latin alphabet. I think we should scrap both Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn and Rhomania beause that's not English, that's only Greek in Latin letters with a pronounciation guide. The English forms are Roman Empire and Romania. I f the pronounciation is so important, we could have the transliteration to the phonetic alphabet next to the actual greek spelling. I think I see your point about Romania and Rhomania "Ρωμένια vs Ρωμανία?". I think the transliteration is useless here and can very well be replaced with the phonetic alphabet and probably a sound sample so that people can actually hear it. Otherwise, I do not think it is important to know how it was pronounced over the actual translation in English, which is no other than Romania. I stick to my previous proposal, with the addition of the phonetic alphabet version in the brackets.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that "Romania" has at least two pronunciations in english that simple spelling is unable to specify, something like the word "read" in its present and past tense form. One is "Romania" as in Romania and the other is "Romania", as you correctly detected above, with an accent on the 'i' and 'a' pronounced like in Spanish, which is how a english-speaking scholar would pronounce Ρωμανία (regardless of how he'd spell it). So this was not about getting the Greek pronunciation right (that would be impossible), but about getting the right English pronunciation. For the better of the worse, wikipedia does use transliterations alot, hence the template of the article and all the transliterated stuff which has been there for ages. Although Rhōmanía does certainly not shout how Ρωμανία is pronounced in English, it at least states that it is different, this is why I thought that "Romania" should be removed from the lead and put into the nomenclature section. But frankly, I don't think it's that important, at least not worth having an article locked and this huge debate over it. It's a waste of everybody's time. This started off as a minor edit over a minor issue, and if it weren't for Cody's article-owning and edit-warring attitude I wouldn't have insisted on argumentating about it. This is a featured article and we should not be making big changes over small things, this is how good articles usually become bad. So I just vote to go ahead and unlock the article and just agree to disagree about something that's globally unimportant. Miskin (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not really know how the scholars who used "Romania" in their books, wanted it to be pronounced (although if they would wanted a special way for it to be pronounced, they would probably have specified this), but, as said before, "Romania" is the English equivalent/translation used most often (regardless, if that is accurate and how it should be pronounced). And, the Latin "Romania" was actually used in the early period of the Empire (at least during the 4th-6th centuries), and later also by west Europeans. The strict transliteration of the Greek word in Latin alphabet, is still a Greek expression with Latin characters. (And neither me, nor you, own this article.) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And if we really have to change something in order to feel that we didn't waste our time completely, for me Cody's first proposal is acceptable and an improvement, i.e. "Romania (Greek:Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía)". Miskin (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to end this. As I said before, I have no problem if it is mentioned in brackets as in "Romania (Greek:

Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía)". Cody7777777 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. However, Miskin, I am just curious, do any scholarly books use "Rhōmanía" or is it limited to Wikipedia? (That would be frowned upon, of course.) Also, why should it be pronounced differently? If I see "Romania" in reference to the Byzantine or Latin empires, I pronounce it the same way I pronounce the modern country of Romania. So what? Am I wrong to pronounce it that way? Why? There are two different places called Georgia, and two different places called Albania, but we do not insist that they be pronounced differently, do we? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But in our case I'm not insisting that they have different pronunciations, they already do so. Unlike with the Georgias, 'Romania' for the country and 'Romania' for Byzantium have different pronunciations in English. It's like the example of the verb "read" in its present and past tense form that standard english spelling is unable to specify. I'm not sure about this but I think "Romania" when referred to the Latin empire would be pronounced "Romània" with a clean 'a' and the accent on the the second syllable. However for the Greek version the accent goes on the third syllable. That's how a scholar would pronounce it in a lecture even if s/he typed in the blackboard 'Romania'. Rhōmanía doesn't appear to have any google hits but then again neither does "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn", yet it has been in the lead and the template for a very long time (and Rhōmanía has been in the nomenclature section). I don't find that they're wrong because they're using a sourced/standardised transliteration system. In the Koine Greek article there are entire paragraphs transliterated into IPA by the editors themselves - it's common practice. Miskin (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to assume your first language isn't English, if you think any English-speaking person pronounces "Romania" differently for the three different states. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an assertion that Miskin seems to be making without any evidence whatever. john k (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The assertion was about a scholar or someone who uses a transliterated term and not just your average joe english-speaker. Sure, for someone who sits on his sofa and watches the history channel or the BBC learning programme, it won't matter in the slightest. That person will also use the same pronunciation for Georgia (U.S. state) and the transliteration of georgia. This doesn't mean they are pronounced the same. Nor does it need more sources as proof. Miskin (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As of yet, you have presented no sources either that anyone speaking in English pronounces "Romania" in different ways It may be pronounced differently in Latin or in Greek, but that is irrelevant. Even Classic scholars don't talk about "Iulius Kaisar" when speaking English. They say "Julius Caesar." And you still present no evidence "Rhomania" is ever used by anyone ever when writing in English. john k (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JK you're just taking me in rounds so let's go through this one more time. Why should I provide sources for something that has been in the article since before it obtained its FA status (i.e. the spelling 'Rhōmanía')? I try to move a term from the nomenclature to the lead and suddenly it turns out that this term is completely inappropriate for the article, and somehow I suddenly take full responsibility for that term and its usage in the article. Absurd. On a second note, you have completely ignored the fact that another term ("Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn"), which according to your books.google.com-centric logic has no sources whatsoever, has been used in the lead and its TEMPLATE since forever. This double standard approach is for me completely absurd and makes no rational basis for argumentation regarding the usage of 'Rhōmanía'.
"Julius Caesar" is a standard English dictionary term, part of the common English language vocabulary. Therefore uncomparable. The term "Romania" has only one meaning in standard English and that is related to the country of Romania - to claim that it also has a second meaning to refer to "Byzantium" would be plainly ignorant to say the least. This is a transliterated term simplified by using ASCII characters, just like "Basileia ton romaion" would have been (which btw is not used in the article eventhough it does have google books hits).
As for the pronunciation, I used the example of the transliterated Georgia versus the common "Georgia". If you argue that those two latter terms are pronounced the same by a scholar because there are "no google hits", then I've been wasting my time. They're not pronounced the same and there are no google books hits to prove it. It's the same scenario with 'Romania'. Sure there are non-google books ways to prove it but I'm really not gonna waste my time on something as unimportant which should have been common sense (given the common wikipedia practice).
Also JK, I've already stated that as far as I'm concerned this conversation is over, I really don't care enough to continue it and you don't have to change anything with the article. If you want to continue arguing with me for the sake of arguing then try at least to get some of the facts straight first. Like for example, who put the term Rhōmanía in the article, how long has it been there, and why you and all the other people who are now questioning its correctness had never done so prior to my attempt to place it in the lead en par with "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn", another unsourced term by your standards.
Alternatively we can just end it here and unlock the article. Which is what I prefer. Miskin (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unbeliveble mistake concernig begining of the empire

I cannot belive my eyes! Byzantine empire was founded in 3330??????? EMPIRE not the city. This is outrageus and completly innacurate. The city was rebulided in early 4 th century. It existed before, and if Theodosius I is the last Emperor of Rome how can the EMPIRE BEGIN IN 330 AD WHEN HE DIED IN 395. AND SPLIT THE EMPIRE. THIS YEAR IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE BOX!!!!!!!! And after I tried to change this horrible and shameful mistake some "smart" guy revisted it. NPOV PEOPLE AND FACTS! THIS IS BULLSHIT!

User:Emoutofthevee —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

The Byzantine Empire was neither founded in 330 nor in 395. And Theodosius I was not the last Roman Emperor, nor did the Roman Empire "fall" or cease to exist in 395. The Empire was split not only in 395, but also in 285/6, in 337, and in 364 (at least). After 395 simply no one could reunite both halfes (unless you count Justinian' restoration).

The Eastern Roman Empire was not "founded"; it simply continued to exist. Therefore, any foundation date is to be taken with a grain of salt. As the article's section on the establishment of the Empire points out, much of the groundwork was laid by the reforms of Constantine, which is why the article picks 330 as the approximate date.

HTH, Varana (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess, that's why NPOV was mentioned. There are several dates that can be considered for the starting date of the Byzantine Empire - 330, 395 etc. Neither of them is obviously "correct" and we should avoid "taking sides" if we can. At least there should be some discussion about the dates. In fact, there was even a section "Dating the empire" ([178]), but it looks like after some... er... discussion about the lead section all this information ended up removed from the article - [179] - (just in case, there is hardly any doubt that it was not done in bad faith). I'd say we should return it...

And on the matter of the infobox - I guess it would be best to remove it completely, but at least something like "330(?)–1453", "330/395/476/620–1453", "4th/7th century AD–1453" might give some idea about the exactness of the starting date... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, normally I am not so much for pinpointing exact dates in infoboxes either, but I think a case can be made here. It can be argued from the expression itself that since the article's subject is a Graeco-Roman empire (no matter what you want to call it) centered around Constantinople, the founding date should be the year when Constantinople first became just that, i.e. an imperial residence. I think it depends on whether you want to emphasize the element "Byzantine" or "Empire". Wikipedia appears to do the latter; otherwise we would have a pendant article about the "Eastern Roman Empire" before it became "Byzantine". Iblardi (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to calling that a POV issue. It is a debate about facts (when was the Empire founded?) and about the article (What should go into the infobox?). I still think, with Iblardi's arguments, that 330 is the date that makes most sense, but if a discussion comes to a different conclusion, I have no problem with that. It's just that the agitated tone of Emoutofthevee threw me off a bit. :)

Anyway, regarding the infobox: I usually am against too much information and explanations within the box. Put a date in there, and direct the reader to the respective section of the article. (Can we create a clickable reference from the box to the article?) Varana (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi's comments. The Byzantine Empire, from its very name, is intimately tied with the fate of the city of Byzantium/Constantinople: its establishment as an imperial residence after 330 marks the beginning of a continuous imperial government that lasted until 1204, when the "Byzantine Empire" was disestablished, although other "Byzantine" states held out, and the Empire was only restored in 1261 when Constantinople was recovered. Again, its fall in 1453 marks the end of the Empire, although remnants survived for a few years after that. Other start dates can be supplied using political or cultural arguments, but the 330 date is, per the above argument, the most "correct" and also, being the earliest of the alternatives, the more inclusive one. Constantine ✍ 08:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, legally, the Roman Empire begun at 31BC (this is not POV I have an important book for backup if you like)... Our choice here has to be the following: will we follow what is "legally" accepted and was accepted and quite correct for the Byzantines/Romans, or will we follow historiography? First goes for 31 BC second for 330.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavs not Turks

While I was adding information on Maurice (as 99.232.150.148 accidentally) in the Reconquests section I noticed that somebody keeps changing Slavs to Turks when it comes to the sentence "They (the Avars) captured the Balkan fortress of Sirmium in 582, while the Slavs began to make inroads across the Danube." Yes the Avars were of mixed Turkic ethnicity but the other peoples who made "inroads" were the Slavs. Changing Slavs to Turks could be terribly confusing and innaccurate for a casual reader.

--Tataryn77 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian Map

I'm not sure the maps of the empire at its greatest extent under the Macedonians is entirely accurate. The sources I've read indicate that it had a broader area of control in Mesopotamia and Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent formatting

I have noticed on a cursory glance that references are highly inconsistent in form. Some use Author, page with no periods; others have a period and use "p." or "pp." and some are linked, and some are not. Can we settle on a consistent form for these notes so they are easier to decipher? Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I also note that there are many notes that are not just references. Should we split these up? Martin Raybourne (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Map in box

I think it's problematic for a map of the Empire as it was for about fifteen years should be the map in the infobox. The empire only covered all of Italy from the end of the Gothic War in 553 until the Lombard invasion in 568. It seems perverse to illustrate the extent of an empire that lasted for a thousand years by a territorial extent it held for less than 20. I'd much prefer to use the 1045 map as the main map. john k (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is based in consensus and voting that took place about a year ago.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion from last June clearly did not result in a consensus. A majority apparently favored the 565 map, but there was no consensus, and wikipedia is not a democracy. Furthermore, the use of the Justinian map seemed to be justified on the basis that the map has to show a country at its "greatest territorial extent." I have no idea what the basis for such a claim is, but if there is a guidelines which states as much, a case like Byzantium, where the "greatest territorial extent" under Justinian applies to an empire which arguably was not yet fully "Byzantine," (Latin was still the official language, for instance) and which was both incredibly short-lived and incredibly tenuous, is one which, it seems to me, deeply implicates WP:IAR. Is there an argument for using the Justinian map other than that it represents the largest territorial extent of the empire? What is the guideline which supposedly requires that the main map for former states represents largest territorial extent? john k (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to decide with a poll. Anyway, I do not see a point in there. Yes the Empire was not "fully Byzantine" and had never been Byzantine at all, up to 1453. The Empire was the Roman Empire and Justianian was one of its Emperors, since we're referring to the Period when the Imperial Capital is Constantinople. Last June's question was simple: include a map that shows the Empire's peak, but which peak, territorial or political? And it was decided for the territorial peak to be presented in the infobox and the political later on somewhere else in the article.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me be clearer. Most historians of late antiquity would refer to Justinian's empire as the "Eastern Roman Empire." It's connections to the older Roman Empire are very clear - Latin was still the language of government and of the emperors; it still entertained ambitions of reuniting all the territories of the old empire, and made a stat at it with the reconquest of Africa and Italy; and in the east, it still comprised the whole extent of the old Roman Empire. All of this changed in the period following Justinian - the ambitions to reconquer the west were mostly destroyed by the Lombard invasion, and then again by Constans II's failures a century later; Latin was supplanted by Greek as the language of administration; and the territories in the Levant and Egypt were lost permanently due to the Islamic conquest. The state which emerged by the beginning of the eighth century was distinctly different from Justinian's empire, and is almost always referred to in the historiography as the "Byzantine Empire." Given that this article is about the whole period, the main map should be more representative of the territorial extent of the empire through the vast majority of its history, which is what the 1045 map does. And you have still not presented an argument for using the "territorial peak" - just an assertion that this is what was decided last year by a narrow majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and looking at the argument from last year, I don't see any coherent arguments for the current map either. All I see is a lot of people noting that 565 is the greatest territorial extent, and then assuming that they have somehow demonstrated that this should be the map for the article. So, I'll ask again. Why are you saying that the "greatest territorial extent" should be the basis of the map? Is there a guideline or wikiproject recommendation somewhere which suggests this? Even if that were the case, I'd still say this is probably a case where we should ignore all rules and go with a more sensible map, but it would at least be more comprehensible. Either way, I'd like to understand what the argument is for requiring the "maximum territorial extent" as the basis for the map. Why is this better than, say "a map which gives some sense of the territorial extent of the empire through most of its history?" While the 1045 map is obviously just as much of a snapshot as the 565 map, it does a much better job of generally representing the extent of the empire through most of its history - the Balkans and Anatolia (with some residual territory in Italy). That more or less describes the territorial extent of the Byzantine Empire from the late 7th century until the early 14th century (with the exception of the Italian territories, which were lost in the eleventh century). Egypt, Syria, North Africa, Spain, and most of Italy were all lost within a century of the current map, and, with the exception of parts of southern Italy and northern Syria, never recovered. Why is it useful to our readers to suggest a Byzantine Empire much larger than it was for the vast majority of its history? john k (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To use 'a high-watermark map' in a 'historical nation-article' is widely the common form here in Wikipedia AFAIK. It's not a official policy but rather a custom (as in tradition). Please take a look at Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Arsacid Empire, etc. All of them show the subject at the point of its maximum territorial extent regardless if it was a temporary fluke (an exception). Can you (john k) give us a good reason why we shouldn't follow this custom in this article also? If your basic arguments are more or less that "the Byzantine Empire was (after Justinian) not Roman enough for me" and "this empire should be shown with its (so-called) traditional territories" then please propose a change. I know that I will vote against it (and if I'm mistaken with my assumptions about your reasoning then I apologize). And yes you are quite correct: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it also isn't a dictatorship. Flamarande (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A third possibility is to have the map in the infobox show a limited number of different historical boundaries of the empire during its long life span, for instance those of 565, 1045, and 1360. A reworking of the present map in this direction would, in my opinion, add to its informative quality. Iblardi (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may quote a historian: "When exactly 'Byzantine' begins and 'late Roman' ends is a moot point. Some prefer to use 'Byzantine' for the eastern part of the Roman Empire from the time of Constatine I, that is to say, from the 320's and 33o's, other apply it to the Eastern empire from the later fifth or sixth century, especially from the reign of Justinian (527-565). In either case, the term 'Byzantine' legitimately covers the period from the late Roman era on, and is used to describe the history of the politics, society and culture of the mediaeval east Roman Empire until its demise at the hands of the Ottomans in the fifteenth century." - John Haldon in 'Byzantium a history' ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 page 9, chapter Introduction.

In my personal interpretation: there no clear point where one (Eastern Roman Empire) ended and the other (Byzantine Empire) started. There is a difference between the two but cultural transformations take decades and centuries and depend largely upon the viewer's opinion and interpretation. The ancients themselves never had a official ceremony that we could use (as when Mao declared the official start of the Peoples Republic of China). Historians acknowledge this fact with the Byzantine Empire. Flamarande (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I explained my reasons - that the current map is misleading, because the Byzantine Empire lasted for over one thousand years and lost most of the territories depicted on the map quite early in its history. Roman Empire does depict a brief ephemeral set of borders, and I'd say that we should probably instead do a map which doesn't include Mesopotamia, whose "conquest" by Trajan lasted about two years, but at least in that case the difference between the map and the long-standing borders of the Roman Empire for four centuries are not particularly great. A couple of years after this map became operative for the possibly-not-yet-Byzantine-Empire, they lost most of Italy. A few decades later they lost Egypt, the Levant, North Africa, and their foothold in Spain. They never regained any of these territories (except some border regions in southern Italy and Syria). The Empire then existed for 800 years, never controlling any of these territories again. The 1045 map is better because it represents the greatest extent of the Byzantine Empire after it lost its Roman accoutrements. Justinian's Empire was more a late and temporary revival of the Roman Empire than the "height" of the Byzantine Empire, and as such its territorial extent is more in the nature of a shadow of the old Roman Empire than a good representation of what the Byzantine Empire was about. Looking at other examples isn't very useful, simply because few other empires have undergone the massive kind of territorial recentering that the Byzantine Empire experienced. I find it weird that I have to keep on explaining this, while being accused of not providing any reasons for what I want to do. Obviously you disagree with me, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could be in much doubt about the basis for wanting a map showing the later period. And I already proposed what I think should be done - use the 1045 map. I would be open to Iblardi's suggestion of a map showing the empire's extent at different periods. And again, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Justinian's empire is often considered to be part of the Byzantine Empire. I just think the uncertainty of the transitional period of the sixth century gives us reason to be cautious about using that map as the main one. Obviously, a map of Justinian's conquests ought to be included somewhere within the article. john k (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In this article, what is described with the term "Byzantine Empire" is the Roman Empire after its capital was transferred to Constantinople. So Justinian's map is fine. What you're suggesting is a new view that this article should have, about linking what is described here to the Greek language and tradition. It is not about the map, it is about the article. The present definition of the map is in perfect accordance to the article.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless. The point isn't that Justinian's Empire wasn't the Byzantine Empire. It certainly fits under the definition of the Byzantine Empire given in this article, which is a perfectly acceptable definition. The point is that the territorial extent of Justinian's Empire is not representative of the territorial extent of the Byzantine Empire for the vast majority of its existence. john k (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said: To use 'a high-watermark map' in a historical 'nation-article' is AFAIK the common form here in Wikipedia. It's not a official policy but rather a custom (as in tradition). Please take a look at Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Parthian Empire, etc. All of these articles (and only god knows how many more) show the subject (nation) at the point of its maximum territorial extent regardless if it was a temporary fluke (an exception). Why shouldn't the Byzantine Empire-article do the same? Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All the articles you note have "high water marks" that are reasonably representative of the territorial extent of the empire through most of its history. This isn't true for Byzantium. I have been trying throughout this discussion to explain why I think this is not appropriate for the Byzantine Empire, and why an exception should be made, but nobody seems to actually be following my argument. And there are wikipedia articles that are exceptions. For example, we have Grand Duchy of Hesse and Kingdom of Saxony, which distinctly do not show those states' territories at their largest territorial extents (during the Napoleonic period), but rather their borders for most of their history in the long nineteenth century. john k (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Byzantium, the difference between the (short) "high water mark" and the average size is indeed exceptional, with the empire of Justinian being about three times at large as the much more stable medieval one, and the 565 map alone does not give an accurate idea of the true extent of the empire through most of its history. I think that tradition is in itself not a good argument, but if conventions are to be given any weight, I can point to the practice of showing several phases in one map which I reffered to above. Typically such a map would show the empire both at its late antique and medieval zenith. An example, which includes the phase of decline in the 14th century, can be found here: [180]. I do not see why we would have to choose between either map A or map B. Iblardi (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this? Image:Byzantium_Location_550_1025.svg Varana (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite nice, although the light green is a bit composite, and does not reflect any actual historical extent (the gains in Armenia occurred in 591, after most of Italy and much of Spania had been lost) Constantine ✍ 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you mean by "composite"? For the extent of Justinian's empire, I used this map. If that's wrong, I'll change mine. Varana (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought as much. Lazica was actually almost fully separated from the rest of the Empire. If you want an accurate eastern border for 565, take a look here and here. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The composite map looks good to me, pending any modifications for strict accuracy. john k (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should remain as it is. As Flamarade said, it is common for maps of Empires to show the Empire's greatest territorial peak (that's partlu what Empires are about isn't it?). Other maps can be added somewhere else inside the article.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware that it is common for maps of states to show the state's greatest territorial extent. I'm not sure how empires are "partly about" that, though. Is the Roman Empire's two year possession of Mesopotamia really sufficiently important that we need a map which shows it? And, as I've noted before, the Byzantine Empire is a special case, in that it's territorial peak is dramatically larger than its extent through the vast majority of its history, and also occurred near the beginning of a very long history and was never repeated. We ought to be flexible, rather than adhering blindly to a "rule" which isn't even a rule. john k (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Caption correction

The caption: "The siege of Constantinople in 1453 according to a 15th century French miniature." is redirected to List of sieges of Constantinople, which is less than ideal. I would like to edit that caption to "The Fall of Constantinople according to a contemporary French pilgrim." but I cannot due to the page lock. Alternatively, if editing of text is unacceptable at this time, it could be kept the same but the redirect fixed, e.g. siege of Constatinople. --Noren (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter would be the better solution, in any event. I'm an admin, so I can edit it, if nobody objects. john k (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to leave a note, I changed it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)