Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 7

Underlying Reasons for Decline

Hi. I've been writing about the twelfth century in this article, and have added some new sections on this because I think it is a crucial turning point for the empire. I have been thinking about why empires rise and fall, and how there are diferent ways of looking at the reasons. Although you can say that each leader of the state is responsible for the successes or failures that occur during their reign, I am increasingly coming round to the view that it has more to do with underlying institutions and the way the state itself works. For example, under the Comneni the empire was saved by three very capable rulers, but their success masks underlying problems which resulted in catastrophe after they were gone. I have argued that the theme system was one of the crucial reasons for Byzantine success over the centuries, and that its demise coupled with the reliance on strong government by the emperor meant that the state was no longer healthy. Does anyone agree with me on this issue, or are there alternative explanations that I have not covered?

Bigdaddy1204 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion has a withstanding historical basis. The fall of the empire did not come by independent wrong-doings of some emperors. It was the result of a century-long wrong policies followed by a series of emperors. For example although the Comneni were very capable military and diplomatic leaders, they lacked sensitivity on internal problems aroused within the 12th and 13th century. The rise of the byzantine aristocracy and the subsequent suppression of the weak independent farmers brought a huge decline in the empire's incomes as well as an unjustifyable increase of expenditures related to the luxurious lifestyle of the newly created aristocracy and the royal court. The Byzantine Empire for the first time faced so critical economic problems. The small independent farmers were the lifeblood of the empire providing I/food for the urban population II/gold to the royal coffins III/men to the imperial army and navy and most importantly - IV/ by inhabiting the eastern extremes of the empire (Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia) they were acting like a live shield to the expansion of the islamic populations. The emperors after Basil the BulgarSlayer were mostly people coming form the very rich aristocracy of Asia Minor (Aggeloi, Dukes) and as a result they defendended the privileges of their class against the poor. At the same historic period the feudarchy invaded the Byzantine Empire, from the west with the land being separated to large family feuds and local rulers (doux), independent from a strong central authority, which was the emperor. Manuel himself is characterised as a knight-emperor according to the western customs. This rulers were not easily controlable and oftenly acted against the wide interests of the empire. They were not paying taxes to the royal coffins and their local blood-sucking policies drove the agricultural production to a nadir. As now the smaller farmers were fallen into a populous class of miserable plebes the army started increasingly to recruit foreign mercenaries and ex-crusaders. These people did not have the pride to defend the empire against the islamic hordes. They only cared about gold, and when gold run out the empire fallen. It was the first time that the empire had to rely on foreign mercenaries and not on locally recruited tactical army. Byzantine infantry the most basic tactical group of the byzantine army was a projection of the roman legions of the early republican years (2nd and 1st century BC). Their capacity based on their pride and faith had been proven numerous times in the past. After the 12th century the byzantine infantry became a second tier tactical group not properly equipped and comprised of miserable prideless plebes.I hope these factors mentioned here answer some of your questions to a certain extend.

Regards Astavrou 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yarmuk

Erm...people, Mr. Bishop removed the speculation about the Yarmuk thing in early history. Well, all right, I suppose that information does not belong in a that part of the article. Perhaps I should move it to the Battle of Yarmuk page?

Well I suppose it would be more appropriate there...but I don't think it belongs anywhere. You have no idea what would have happened if Yarmuk turned out differently. It's not our job to propose alternate realities on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the revisions. The article looks much more informative now. I added some names to establish some empty links that I am planning to fill in the following days. The statement that the date of the invasion of Constantinople is one of the conventional dates for the beginning of modern ages has been deleted. Is this a disputable information? Otherwise, it seems to be a useful information. ErdemTuzun

Thanks for making the article in the first place, I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise, though Byzantium's one of my favorite civilizations. The comment was missing simply because I forgot to rework it in. I've added it, plus a note on urban life I forgot to make. --Josh Grosse

Should there be a link to the Ottoman Empire, which was in the same region at a later time? -- ansible

Empress Irene

I suggest adding something about the Empress Irene and the Carolingians. Also --and I say this in all seriousness -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FEUDAL? Just wondering, since this term is misused so frequently and context changes according to time and place... JHK

Empress Irene and her incapability drove the Empire to very bad and almost catastrophic external and internal situations. She tried to face the economic and defensive problems that she created by subjecting the Roman Empire to western feuds and the Papacy. To my humble opinion her marriage with Charlemagne would never be approved internally and it would led to a civil war. Most probably Irene would have been excommunicated by the Patriarch and she would left the imperial court. As for Charlemagne this was the only way to assert a legitimate grasp over his imperial ambitions. Astavrou 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Minor question: Were Khazars really overhelming most of Balkany? I always thought that far more important were Slavic invasion which overhelmed most of Blakany, and nevr heard about Khazars doing that.. Any eason why Khazars and Lombards are mentioned and Slavic invasion is not? User:szopen

---

Again, i don't know much about Byzantine Empire, but i've never ever heard about Khazars conquering whole Balkans, instead i know quite a few stories about Slavic tribes overhelming whole Balkans, Bulgars etc. In Kazars entry there is nothing about that (and that would be important fact). So is this just simple mistake, and i cuol dcorrect it, or there was such a great invasion of Khazars which ended with all Balkans being in their posession? [[szopen]]

---

Ok, i asked two times, wait a long time, so i changed Khazars to Slavs. I don't know anything about Khazars overhelming whole Balkans. But i know that Slavs invaded Byzantine empire and _they_ conquered whoel Balkans. So i guess someone just made a mistake, so i corrected it. szopen

---

I'm the person who mentioned them originally, and unfortunately haven't been here for a while, which is why I didn't respond. The Slavs never really conquered much of the Balkans, except in association with other invading peoples, most notably the Khazars but also the Avars and Bulgars (who were not Slavic until they were assimilated later). I'm not sure if the difference is important enough to revert the page, though. --User:Josh Grosse

---

Well, yes, they do. They many times sieged Thesalloniki.

The fact was, Slavs were farmers and never organised large staes and large conquest, and they were allies of other people. Bulgars conquered Slavs which were already in Bulgaria.

Interesting to know about Khazars, though. I know about Avars (word Avar, i heard, gave origin to word "olbrzym" meaning big, huge man) but i never, in any historic book i had read, had heard about Khazars cooperating with Slavs. I always thought they were limited to northern steppes. szopen

Does not the text as it stands give insufficient weight to the fact that Latin remained the official language of the administration until the time of Heraclius? djnjwd

• The inscriptions on their coins were all in Latin until the end of Heraclius / beginning of Constans II, when they switched to Greek. Not sure if that is good evidence or not. M123 20:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When I expanded the article, I hope I made sufficient note of the Latin vs. Greek parts. Adam Bishop 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Oddly enough, however, these selfsame historians have never felt a need to invent a new name for France, Spain or other western European countries that have radically changed over the centuries.

I removed that because it sounded a little bitter, or something...also, France has not always been called France, it was Gaul, or Francia/Austria/Neustria, I believe this is discussed in the History of France article. Adam Bishop 19:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The way this is written, it makes it sound like everyone in the Eastern Empire spoke Greek. Greek was the language of Alexandria, Antioch and a few other major cities, but most of Egypt spoke Egyptian (Coptic), and Aramaic was the langauge of the area between Egypt and modern Turkey. There was also a latin-speaking region - Justinian I was a native latin speaker from modern albania.

                                               - 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Greek

Just a note on romanization of Greek: There is a tendency to use quasi-Latin romanization of Greek names and words in the Western tradition. This is somewhat defensible up to the Hellenistic Era, as there is evidence that ancient Greek was pronounced rather differently than modern Greek (although the resulting pronunciations do sound rather ugly...). For the Byzantine era, the evidence is that the pronunciation then current is more like modern than ancient Greek, and so a modern system of romanization is very much in order. Good examples are the titles of the emperor: aftokrátor (autocrator in quasi-Latin) and vasiléfs (basileus). (If you're looking for evidence that β was pronounced [v] and not [b], just look at the Cyrillic alphabet, which dates from the mid-Byzantine era: the letter в, borrowed directly from Greek, represents [v], and a new letter (б) was invented for the [b] sound.) Anyway, an article on Greek history should represent Greek terminology and names in a less Latinocentric manner. I'm not going to mess with the names of the vasileîs for now, but they too should really not be Latinized after a certain point. —Tkinias 09:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: It looks like the sound changes occurred earlier than I had realized, so that New Testament–era Greek is pronounced more like modern than ancient Greek [1]. —Tkinias 10:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, but there is a Wikipedia convention that all proper names should be given in their most common form in English, and the fact is that for Greek names English traditionally uses Latinised forms, so we write Byzantium rather than Byzantion, just as we write Moscow rather than Moskva etc. I think this is a sound practice in a general-readership encyclopaedia (as opposed to an enkuklopaidia). Once we abandon this principle, where do we stop? Adam 10:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't embark on a wholesale moving of emperors to the Greek spellings! ;) The only things I altered (unless I got carried away somewhere...) were where Greek words or names were directly cited—for example, the quasi-Latin Constantinoupolis or basileus. It would be useful, of course, to give the Greek and romanized-Greek versions of names on the appropriate pages, but I'm not going to campaign to get everything moved to romanized Greek spellings for the emperors' names, when the Latinized ones are established in usage. (I'm busy trying to fix really screwed up Arabic romanization at the moment anyway...) Hell, it's not like we get the Latin Romans' names right in English, either... In short, I'd just like to see mediaeval Greek accurately romanized, while remaining within the Wikipedia convention of filing things under English versions of names. —Tkinias 10:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, but the fact is that Konstantinoupolis is not the most common form of the name in English, Constantinople is. The correct Greek forms of the name can be discussed at Constantinople, but in this article the standard form should be used without comment, since this is not an article about Greek etymology. Likewise with "valiseios" and "aftokrator" etc. This kind of semantic digression doesn't belong in this article. Adam 11:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that semantic digressions are inappropriate in this article. I did not add them; I merely corrected the romanization of Greek terms or names which were introduced into the article by other contributers. Not mentioning the Greek name of Constantinople, or the Greek title of the emperor, is one thing; mentioning them and inaccurately romanizing them is another. An analogy would be: If an article consistently writes Munich in reference to the Bavarian city, that would be normal (and, according to Wikipedia policy, correct) English usage; if the article notes that the name in German is Munshen, it would be appropriate to correct that to München. —Tkinias 11:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming

An anonymous user (212.113.164.98) is changing references to the Byzantine Empire to read Eastern Roman. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't know enough about the topic to know if it is valid. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It hasn't been, and I think they have all been reverted now...I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but we have been using "Byzantine" here rather than "East Roman." Adam Bishop 05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters. Byzantine is just the term modern historian terminology, even though at the time the Byzantines regarded themselves as the Roman empire itself, which was true. I think the terms are interchangeable, and readers are well aware of this from the beginning. As to whether it was more Roman than the Western side of Europe depends entirely on which side you sympathise. It is important to note to people who don't know much about the subject, that there has been a lot of western European bias about the Byzantine empire (they were hated and envied) up until recently. The empire has been shunned from the (Western-written) history books. Modern Greek people regard themselves as descendants of the Byzantines (rather than the Ancient Greeks), and so there is a lot of pride in the empire by Greek people. Eliasbizannes 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map

The map provided is not good enough. I don't think it is representative of the true breadth of the Byzantines. The map, taken as a snapshot in 1265, was when the empire was in steep decline. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 also quite literally ripped the guts out of the empire. So a map when the empire was in steep decline, and at its most vulnerable as it tried to reclaim lost land, is inappropriate. I will try to find a better map, but I think people should be aware of this. It is the equivalent of using a map of modern day Britain, and as the sole picture, implying that is what the British Empire was like at its peak. Eliasbizannes 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found a link for people to get a better understanding about the size of the empire. These maps compare the Roman empire, Byzantine empire and several empires on a map of Europe. Most importantly, it shows the Byzantine empire at 1204 - its low point - and 564, when it was at its peak. The site also has other maps and information which will help newbies with the subject., Eliasbizannes 12:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we need to find a map in the public domain, or a map that is not copyrighted. There are plenty of good maps on the Internet but we can't use most of them. Adam Bishop 17:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done some Byzantine maps for the Finnish WP. See fi:Bysantin valtakunta. I've been meaning to translate all the names to "english", but I've been too busy. :) -- Jniemenmaa 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm using IE 6.0.28 and the "timeline" that is supposed to line the right side of the page blocks out the entire abstract. Unfortunately, fixing it is a bit beyond my expertise.Variable 19:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault, I fixed it now - I forgot to set the width of the new table row I added. Adam Bishop 00:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Just wondered why the new qualifying language and interpolations about multiethnicity and multilanguage were removed. It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in. Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians? What about the Isaurian mountain folk? What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? What about the predecessors of the Albanians? Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed? I am a great admirer of the medieval Greeks--in other new interpolations I exerted myself to refute the unfair prejudices and stereotypes about them that for too many centuries dominated scholarship on this subject. But the paragraph on Byzantine identity as it stands seems to be an exaggeration of the facts. Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert. Unless the point about the Greek identity of the "Balkans" etc. can be substantiated by scholarship, I think the text should either be restored or something entirely new should be added by someone who has the scholarly foundation in Byzantinism that I sadly lack.

Apology

I'm sorry if I have offended you by editing the article but the picture promoted of Byzantium as a cultural amalgamation by Runciman and his followers falls short of the truth. More recent scholarship has proved that even in its early centuries Byzantium was more Greek than previously believed, rendering older works outdated. The simple fact that even before the fall of Rome "Roman" had already began to mean "Greek" demonstrates the marginalization of foreign societies (which shouldnt be a suprise given that even in the pre-Diocletian empire some lands were favored over others despite their equality in law). See for example Warren Treadgold (History of the Byzantine State and Society, 1997, pg.136): "By that time [fall of Rome] most easterners had come to think themselves as Christians, and more than ever before had some idea that they were Romans. Although they may not have liked their government any more than before, the Greeks among them could no longer consider it foreign, run by Latins from Italy. The word Greek itself had already began to mean a pagan rather than a person of Greek race or culture. Instead the usual word for an eastern Greek had begun to be Roman, which we modern render as Byzantine".

Treadgold deliberately distincts Greeks from the rest of the population precicely because of their elevated position in the empire, in order to explain their subsequent dominance in it. The fact that the Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship to all races does not mean it provided for the development of a pluralist society, which was defined by the aggregate of national traits. That would amount to partiallity because the influence of Greeks was disproportionaly greater than that of other peoples ever since the beginning, and would also be unfair to the persistance of national identities alongside Byzantinism within the territories, such as those of the Armenians.

Which is why I think Byzantium's identity depends more on its fluid society than on the territories it encompassed, as you suggest.

The fact that Armenians resided within the Byzantine Empire does not erase their own existing national identity, which is also true for the Armenians that resided outside the empire (the so called armenian buffer state). To quote Armenian area specialist Nina G. Garsoian (The Problem of Armenian Integration in the Byzantine Empire, 1998, pg.54):As early as the reign of Diocletian, the ancient cis-Euphratine kingdom of Armenia Minor emerged from Cappadocia to become a seperate province which was split under Theodocius I into Armenia I and Armenia II... Subsequent evidence that the region remained demographicaly and culturaly Armenian is provided by the complaints of the bishops of Armenia II, in their answer to the Encyclical of emperor Leo in 458, that they were living among barbarians. One century later, the great administrative reform of Justinian in 536, which created four Armenias, including the two former provinces of that name together with portions of the trans-Euphratine kingdom of Greater Armenia and Pontus, indicates that the imperial authorities still regarded the regions as primarily Armenian." There is a plethora of medieval sources that distinct between Romans and Armenians, indicating and verifying that the Armenians never truly integrated into Byzantium and maintained their own national consience, which is why they were never anything more than an ethnic minority and alien to Roman nationality.

It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in.

This was the basis of Fallmerayer's theory of the bastardization of the modern Greek nation, whose blood supposedly was permanently lossed after centuries of repeated Slavic settlements. His theory though has long been rejected and his claims refuted. Slavic conquests into Greece proper were temporary and whatever population movement came with them eventually returned to north of Macedonia where it remained ever since. The few Slavic settlers that did remain behind were either assimilated by Greeks or marginilized into extinction since no medieval source indicates the presence of large slavic population among Greeks.

Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians?

The Bulgarians held an even lower position than the Armenians. They were organized into ducates, not themes, which means they were recognized as a non-Roman people who were not granted citizenship, did not participate in the army, were exluded from the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and served primarily to protect the Greek speaking territories south of them. The position of Venice parallels this. As part of the empire in the 10th century, just like Bulgaria, she served more as an ally.

What about the Isaurian mountain folk?

The Isaurians were considered barbarians or at least Romans of barbaric origins that lived well into the empire. Zeno the Isaurian was forced to change his name into Greek and a great deal of his pains during his reign were due to his Isaurian origins.

What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)?

Religious heresies were always present, and Bogomilism in particular originated from Bulgaria so there is little to say about Byzantium.

What about the predecessors of the Albanians?

Albanians were were one of the smallest non-Greek populations in the empire. What about them?

Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed?

Because I think that the fact Armenians rose to high administrational positions does not reflect the prevailing Byzantine concept of a Roman that was defined in spite of those minorities. The army was always the chief integrational mechanism, and all Armenians that entered government achieved it through the army, but that still doesnt take into account that Armenians maintained their own seperate national conscience, that remained alive even after they were left outside the empire.

Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert.

Why not? The Byzantines themselves were aware of their Greek-Roman ancestry and so were the neighbours of Byzantium, even prior to the the battle of Manzikert.

Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks for your detailed answer. I do not dispute that a Greek Orthodox elite and a Greek Orthodox culture were dominant throughout the empire. My only remaining question would be whether "most" of the people in the giant Balkan and Anatolian territories of the Middle Empire (before Manzikert) actually regarded themselves as Greeks. Your grasp of recent scholarship on this point is impressive and I am inclined to defer to you. Might I suggest you add a sentence or two to the article about why the Seljuks were able to take over and Islamicize eastern and central Anatolia with so little apparent resistance from the local population -- and why the imperial state didn't exert itself more strongly to recover what some modern scholars have depicted as the Empire's heartland. This is something that's always puzzled me. Its like the big elephant in the middle of the living room in the accounts (admittedly outdated) of Byzantine history that I have read. Had environmental degradation already partly depopulated this region, or what?

They did attempt to take back Anatolia, when they had a big enough army to do so, and they gradually took a lot of it back in the 12th century. Myriokephalon was more of a disaster than Manzikert in this sense - they never got eastern Anatolia back at all after that battle. By the way, you guys might want to sign your names here, even if you don't have a user name (just type ~~~~), it makes it easier to follow a discussion. Adam Bishop 00:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Roman Empire

I seriously encourage everybody to agree to moving "Byzantine empire" (a modern semi-spurious coinage) to Eastern Roman Empire, which is more accurate. It won't cause any problems, as anybody typing in "Byzantine empire" will be redirected. Decius 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aaarrgggh...we were just talking about this on Talk:List of Roman Emperors. I seriously encourage you *NOT* to move this. I don't see why "Eastern Roman Empire" is all that much more accurate, they didn't call it that either. In modern historiography it is called "Byzantine Empire" no matter what they called it...I mean, every modern work on the subject calls them "Byzantine" (personally I have three text books with "Byzantine" in the title, and Dumbarton Oaks has "Byzantine Studies", etc etc). Please, DON'T move it. Adam Bishop 04:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They called themselves the Roman Empire, so it is more accurate. And the article should be moved. Decius 04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that many modern works refer to it as "Byzantine" is irrelevant, and I don't see why this ongoing error should be continued in this new Century. That's old garbage. Decius 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh Christ...it'll get moved over my banned de-adminned move-warring body :) Adam Bishop 04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decius, while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think that a) you need to calm down, and back down a bit; and b) that we need to make our article titles correspond to usage, not to ideal usage. Now, it seems to me that English usage has been a bit towards the term "Eastern Empire" rather than "Byzantine Empire." And, logically, it doesn't make much sense to call it after the name that its capital bore before the state itself existed. That being said, as Adam points out, dominant English usage remains "Byzantine Empire," and wikipedia's job should be to reflect usage, not create it. The fact that other terms are sometimes used ought to be mentioned up front, though. john k 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not in any way creating usage, as there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Eastern Roman Empire, so I don't see any legs for the counter-argument. Decius 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the counter-argument is that there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. How could that not have "legs"? Adam Bishop 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage, and it has the advantage of being more accurate. Think about it. I don't know why you are so much in support of the Byzantine term, just because it is somewhat more common in English usage. Decius 04:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't want this to turn into a battle of egos, I just want this proposed renaming of the article to be voted on at least. Decius 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, because it's more common, as you said. I think you just answered your own question. I don't know about you, but I've never met any Eastern Roman historians, taken a class on the Eastern Roman Empire, read any books about the Eastern Roman Empire...we call it Byzantine, that's just what we call it now. But fine, set up a vote if you want. Adam Bishop 04:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are using an example that is misleading: in certain contexts, "Byzantine" is simply an easier adjective to use (i.e. "Byzantine studies", a "Byzantine ship"), but when it comes to the official name of an article, there is no need to use shorthand. Decius 04:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read English books with Eastern Roman Empire as the titled used, though I don't remember the ISBN's. Decius 04:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not misleading at all, "Byzantine" in this sense is used as a formal name. "Eastern Roman" can be used alongside this as an alternate name, but it sounds kind of archaic or poetic. If you can remember those books you read, that would help I suppose. Adam Bishop 05:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire is simpler, and more common. I vote we keep it here. But what of the Western Roman Empire? Simply limiting Roman Empire to the history of the West, and a footnote to mention Byzantium is ignorant and damaging. -Chris5369 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Roman Empire article should discuss the history of the entire empire through the fifth century, and then refer you to Byzantine Empire for the further history of the east. john k 02:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Err, why? Wouldn't make much more sense to create an overview of the entire empire, and refer to such specific lengths in detail in their respective articles? -Chris5369 05:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Roman Empire article should of course note that the eastern empire survived until 1453. But I don't think it should go beyond that. The Byzantine Empire is a separate field of study from the Roman Empire. I agree with you that it is wrong to talk in the 5th century as though the western empire is the empire, when the eastern empire continues to exist and is just as much the empire. But after that, so long as the Roman Empire article makes clear that the eastern empire continued and is known as the Byzantine Empire, and covered in that article, what would be the benefit of having a review of Byzantine history in the Roman Empire article? To recount Byzantine history at the same length as one recounts the earlier history would make the article unwieldy. Plus, you open the question of whether the western empire that recommenced with Charlemagne should be discussed. (The rationale for crowning Charlemagne, after all, was that the Byzantine throne was empty due to the usurpation of Irene). And that would just be a mess. Why don't we just leave it as it is? john k 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't want the article to even go as in-depth as it does now. I would like it to be a brief overview of the Roman Empire, and various times and subjects (the republic & dictatorships [an introduction to the empire], principae, dominate, byzantium, etc.) would have their own seperate articles that are referred to. -Chris5369 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Eastern Roman Empire" was a temporary term, used when the empire was ruled by two co-emperors and was permanently abandoned after the fall of the western half of the Roman empire. The term is not recorded in any official records after the 5th century nor is it used in any pre-modern histories. For the short period of time it was used it didnt relate to any of the cultural or other processes underway that would eventually allow the east to grow independently of the west, but was used purely for administrational reasons. The Roman empire from beginning to end was always considered a single realm, politicaly indistinguishable from the later christian empire that turned into a Greek nation state. In that respect, and insofar as "Eastern Roman Empire" describes the empire after the fall of the west, it is a modernist construction as artificial as "Byzantine Empire", because in truth neither was used by roman contemporaries in the manner historians use it today. The fact that the former holds a precedent over the later (in that it was used by 4th and 5th cent. authorities) doesnt give it an edge over other terms. Like another contributor noted above, the Roman empire in antiquity differed vastly from that in the middle ages and nominal continuities shouldnt overshadow irreversible breaks with the past. No need to be scholastic.

The men that fought against the Turks in 1453 believed that they fought defending the same empire Augustus forged in 27 b.c., yet only in name had those in Constantinople anything in common with Augustus' contemporaries in Rome. I dont think a larger common article about the Roman empire -ancient and mediaeval- is required, nor is a bundle of smaller ones sorted out in periods, nor is any renaming required. "Byzantine" is a better established term than "Eastern Roman" and roman history in wikipedia is more or less already well categorized. There's room for improvement but I dont think there's a need for massive restructuring. What's needed is closer ties to academic discipline. -Colossus

Who was saying that "Greeks were the minority" ? Greeks were one of the many ethnicities that comprised the Empire---that phrase doesn't imply that they were in the minority or the majority, it's just a statement of fact. As for Eastern Roman Empire no one here was saying that such a term was used by the Empire itself. The fact that the term Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage is to be stated upfront. "Proof against the notion", but that notion was not even raised by that statement, and I have no qualms with "that notion". Decius 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what anyone says on the matter, and not stating that there are other common names used to refer to the Empire is a stupid-motherfucking-thing-to do, point blank. Decius 17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're being scholastic. Just because it contains the word "roman" doesnt mean it holds closer ties to historical truth than "byzantine" does. Both terms were adopted as a means to refer to the medieval empire as a SEPERATE entity without bringing to mind its ancient predecessor, and the only way to do that was creating a new name that would have no relation with its ancient past. The fact that you insist on using a term that makes the connection with antiquity all the more evident and the distinction with it all the more confusing goes against the very reasoning it was based upon. Otherwise it would just be called the Roman empire, without the easterns and byzantines. Middle ground isnt always the best solution, which is why academics prefer "Byzantine". But you seem to be fixated on that so I wont push it. So be it.

As for the Greek thing your original article read as: "also as the Eastern Empire, or the Greek Empire, though Greeks were only one of the many ethnicities comprising the empire". Again you claim that its not a distortion of truth, yet you leave room for doubt by implying the label "Greek Empire" is a paradox or at least peculiar given that other ethnic groups co-existed along with Greeks. As if there ever was or ever will be a state or even a nation-state which is ethnicaly 100% pure. So, unless the Byzantine empire is a special case, why should the obvious need be mentioned at all? Isnt it a given that ethnic minorities exist in every sovereign state? Is it necessary to mention that Romania isnt inhabited by ethnic Romanians only? -Colossus

The entire article is extremely enlightening and was a pleasure to read. The question of the name seems to me somehow important. Reading the article, it seems that the appropriation of the name 'Roman' by the West is one of the great con jobs of history. We seem to accept the great ripoff as a fait accompli, but in very simple terms, the Byzantine Empire was in direct line from the Roman Empire -- it is reasonable to call it the (Eastern) Roman Empire -- and the Westerners who later tried to lay claim to the name are in a sense usurpers. In legal terms, they tried to rip off someone else's inheritance! (As a completely irrelevant aside one recalls the oft-quoted comment that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.)

As for 'Byzantine', it may be the accepted historical term but it only came into use centuries after the Empire it describes ceased to exist. In a modern age where the name a country gives itself is a matter of great sensitivity, the gross injustice of calling an Empire a name completely different from the name it called itself seems to be largely unnoticed. Anyway, this is just a comment. I'm not advocating a change in location. Congratulations on a great article.

Bathrobe 24 June 2005

Even if Eastern Roman Empire was the more common usage, Byzantine or a similar greek sounding name would be more appropriate. Calling the empire roman does not indicate the evolution from roman to greek that occured. Honestly I sympathize with you, the romantic part of me wants to agree and think that the Roman empire existing another thousand years. The somewhat sad truth however is that the Byzantine became somthing else, although it was always a successor state it evolved into a greek empire, and grew out of it's roman routes. This is reflected in the change of official language from latin to greek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Flag of the Byzantine Empire"

Bogus anachronism. Not to waste words. --Wetman 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That whole table is pretty anachronistic. Adam Bishop 11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That motto! --Wetman 13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To User:207.5.206.179 and User:Rangeley (assuming you are the same person), it's more than population and land area that are anachronistic:

1. First of all, we already have numerous maps on the page; to suggest any of them is representative of the empire is not very useful, especially because for most of its history it didn't control the western Mediterranean.
2. The motto is not the motto of the empire, it's the motto of the Palaeologan dynasty (and the carving of the double-headed eagle that was added to the table awhile ago is a Palaeologan symbol, not one of the empire in general).
3. I suppose it is possible to say the "official language" was Greek, although it wasn't always (for the period in that map and that flag apply, it was Latin). The idea of an "official language" is anachronistic in itself anyway.
4. So much of this article talks about how difficult it is to date the beginning of the empire...284 won't do without a lot of explanation (and even 1453 for "dissolution", whatever that means here, can be kind of contentious).
5. The currency changes frequently, the follis is not the only currency they ever had (and to say they ever had an official currency is, again, an anachronism).
6. Where did you get that flag anyway? See Wetman's comment above. Adam Bishop 21:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically the Byzantine Empire began in 27 B.C. because it was really just a continuation of the Roman Empire , just with a different capitol

The Byzantines themselves were Greeks not Romans, and that makes a tiny big difference. Of course the real Latin-speaking Romans as an ethnic group were already extinct, and the term "Roman" became a title of nobility (in a way). But then again the Latins of the middle-ages were the enemies of the Byzantines, so again it doesn't make sense unless you draw a line between Roman and Byzantine Empires. Of course it's wise to point out their strong cultural and historical links and characterise Byzantium as an authentic Roman successor state. Miskin

Maps

What happened to all the maps?

Nothing...I still see them... Adam Bishop 05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see them as well. That said, it seems to me we should have some maps covering the appearance of the empire between 565 and 1180...one in the early 8th century, showing the effects of the Arab, Slavic, and Lombard incursions, and one in the early 11th century, showing the recovery under the Macedonian Empire, would be good. One showing the restored empire of the Palæologi at its height would be nice, too. john k 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean to say the "Macedonian Dynasty"? The "Macedonian Empire" refers to a different period of Greek history... Miskin

Byzantine disambig page

The Byzantine page has recently been changed from a redirect (to here) to a disambig. The only alternate meaning given other than the Empire is the adjectival (convoluted, perversely complex). This latter sense is also covered in the article here (section #8) - so, for the sake of avoiding minor annoyance of multiple hops, are there any objections if this is changed back to a redirect? --cjllw | TALK 01:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the meaning of the word "byzantine" is not encyclopedic. It should stay a redirect. john k 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, change it back. It also helps to have it as a redirect when I am too lazy to type [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] :) Adam Bishop 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, 'tis done - reverted.--cjllw | TALK 09:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Maps

I noticed when reading over this article that all the maps have copyright tags on them. Shouldn't these be removed as they're under the GNU Free Documentation License? Leithp 11:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you follow the links to their licenses on Wikimedia Commons, you'll see that the userid who uploaded them is extremely similar to that of the person whose name is in the copyright notices. He seems to have placed them under the GFDL himself. —User:ASDamick/sig 21:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I was referring to removing the tags, not the maps. Leithp 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the copyright notices on the images themselves because I got tired of seeing my maps on one certain Wikipedia clone that claimed they owned the copyrights for them (fortunately that site is compliant with the GFDL nowadays). But anyway, I still own the copyright for the maps even if I released the maps under the GFDL. Of course anyone could just remove the copyright-notice from the map, that shouldn't conflict with the GFDL. At least I think so... IANAL -- Jniemenmaa 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. It's a fairly petty point I was making but since it's a featured article I thought I should ask anyway. Leithp 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory use of Byzantine

Transfered last paragraph of the article to a page of its own (see:Derogatory use of Byzantine) as it didnt quite fit to the subject of the Byzantine Empire. I also added a link for it in the Byzantine disambiguation page. I think its more appropriate this way. What do contributors think? Colossus 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does that really require a separate article? If you're going to make "Byzantine" into a page on it's own, why not discuss the uses of the term there? Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My only reservation for not explaining its usage directly in the disambiguation page was size. The text was three paragraphs long, far too much for a disamb page. And there's always the possibility that someone might further it in the future. Colossus 23:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't need to be a disambiguation page, does it? That page could be about the word "Byzantine" and its usage. Adam Bishop 23:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism

Just a comment on the question of nationality in Byzantium and the middle ages in general, in face of the recent edits in the article questioning the existence of such a concept. A distinction needs to be drawn between the nation-state and nationality in itself. The rise of the nation-state is connected with the universal adherence of the right of nations to self-determination, from which the French Revolution was born. Nationality, on a scale of millions, came out of the middle ages. Antiquity also witnessed similar movements, but only on small numbers (the ancient Greek city states for example all qualified as nations). In the case of the Byzantines, there are numerous testimonies that verify the concept of Greek nationality was well established among them, as it undoubtebly did for its western counterparts of France, England, Germany, even Italy. The official name of medieval Germany was Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. In fact, the war of names with Byzantium after Charlemagne's crowning as "Imperator Romanorum", over the matter of rights of Roman heritage, was a contest of ownership between rival nations. Colossus 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

--

The article was reverted again to Greek-speaking Roman Empire! I dont understand the logic behind it. If nationality was indeed unknown in the middle ages, as some users would have us believe, despite the testimonies of contemporaries that prove otherwise, by applying the same methodology to other medieval states would it be an accurate description naming medieval France as French-speaking Western Francia? Or medieval England as English-speaking England? Or the Holy Roman Empire as German-speaking Holy Roman Empire? The inhabitants of all of the above states considered themselves much more than mere citizens of a state speaking a common tongue. The later kingdom infact, was officialy named Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. I'm really curious for someone to explain why the term Roman Empire during the middle ages, a Christian state of the Greek nation (or people) is deemed inapropriate. And also to explain why medieval Germany was named Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation if nationality and nation did not exist at the time. Colossus 16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

But doesn't that only apply to the Palaeologus period of the empire, when it was relatively small and only had Greeks living in it anyway? Certainly the previous 800 years cannot fit into this arrangement. Yes, the empire is essentially Greek in language, culture, religion, etc, for its entire history, but this is not a "state of the Greek nation". Whatever that even means. Note also that the Holy Roman Empire was not always called "of the German nation", as even our own article about it states. Adam Bishop 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A paradox arises from that: If the empire became Greek only in towards the end, and given that only Greeks speak Greek, how could the empire have been Greek-speaking for its entire history? The empire had in fact become Greek as early as the 7th century, after a series of Arab and Lombard invasions left only Asia Minor and the Balkans, both immiscibly Greek populated lands, as the article already makes clear. How many times did the Popes or the Germans refer to the Byzantines as Greeks, proving that any remaining non-Greek populations were too small to be taken into account? In fact, King Khosrau II of Persia, in threatening letter he sent to Heraclius refered to the Byzantines as "Greeks", and that was in 622 when the empire's Asian and European territories where still intact (see 3-volume work by John Julius Norwhich, book 1, chapter: The First Crusader).

The Greekness of the empire was not questioned. The original editor, Theathenae, edited the opening sentence of the article on the grounds that the byzantines, and any medieval people for that matter, would have been incapable of identifying themselves as members of a nation, apparently because the concept of nationality hadnt been developed yet. That's a rather bold statement given bibliography on the subject, especialy when Wikipedia itself states that the first known use of the word "nationality" was made "in 968 a.d. when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor." (see: nation)

Byzantium, for Liutprand, qualifies the requirements that define a "nation", which judging by the rest of the sources in this case also happens to be the Greeks.

I myself borrowed the phrase Greek nation from the work of a known, though old, Byzantine scholar, August Heisenberg (Sources and studies of late byzantine history: Collected work, 1974), who defined Byzantine civilization: "Byzantium is the Roman state of the Greek nation, that became Christian". A more recent scholar, George Ostrogorsky, on the same issue said: "Roman administration, Greek civilization and Christian faith are the three main sources of Byzantine evolution." Since then, other scholars, more specialized in the field, such as Helen Ahrweiler, quoted in the main article, were also crystal clear on the issue.

In light of the above, could someone explain how is nationality absent from Byzantium or the middle ages in general, and why is calling the Byzantine empire a state of the Greeks such a misdirection? Especially when contemporaries didnt mind calling it as such? Colossus 22:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are not very strong counter-arguments. First of all the term "Empire" itself is by definition an expanding state where one ethnic group dominates over others, therefore the term "multi-ethnic empire" sounds bizarre. Therefore it doesn't make sense to point out how many non-Greek ethnic groups had existed within the Empire in order to determine its ethnicity. The medieval "Greek nation" or "Greek people" would refer to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire who recognised themselves as Romans. Colossus is right on this one, a "nation-state" is a modern term, but a "nation" (ethnos) of people is a very ancient one. Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century. We've already been using a term which was unknown to the "Greco-Romans" (Byzantines), because scholars thought it was necessary to make a distinction between Roman and Medieval Greek history. I'm sure that if the crusade of 1204 caused some a big change to the ethnic or cultural character of the Empire, scholars would have invented another term to describe the period of Palaeologus (Hellenic Empire?). By calling the Byzantine Empire a "Greek-speaking Empire" it's like implying "they were not really Romans as they claimed in the beginning, so we call them Byzantines, but they were neither really Greeks as they claimed at the end, so we call them Greek-speaking". I really don't see the logic in that, especially when in Ostrogorsky's own words (who is quoted in your sources) "Byzantine history properly speaking is the history of the medieval Greek Empire". I've never come across any scholars referring to Byzantium as part of the medieval "Greek-speaking" history. Miskin 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on. It is not incorrect to refer to its later phase as a Greek empire, but claiming that it was not a multi-ethnic empire through much of its history is bizarre. And note also: many of those "Greeks" were in fact Hellenized peoples of originally non-Hellenic ethnicity: South Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, and so on and so forth, though since they later became Greeks, one can't use them to claim a multi-ethnic empire (the various ethnicities became absorbed into the Greek ethnos). Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. Decius 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks. It was always my understanding that the term "Greek Empire" was one mostly used by Westerners. As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it obviously was - even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?) john k 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Westerners calling it the "Greek Empire" was also something of an insult - rather than acknowledge their Roman heritage, which of course was also claimed by the HRE. Adam Bishop 03:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really insisting to change it into "Greek nation", but I don't find a valid counter-argument in here not to do so either. So according to you Decius, which Empire was ever not multi-ethnic? An Empire by definition is conquering foreign nations and therefore has many ethnic groups, period. The point here is which ethnic group (if any) is in charge of the empire. In that case it's the Greeks, who also happen to be the majority (but that doesn't really matter) and since the term "Empire" implies multi-ethnic, there's no point mentioning it. A multi-ethnic, expanding, Greek-speaking, Christian, medieval state can be efficiently summarised as: A Greek Empire. The Greeks vs Hellenised people is also a weak counter-argument. Ethnicity is defined in terms of culture, otherwise the only real Greeks (by your definition) would be the speakers of proto-Greek. According to your definition, the ancient Greeks should not be called Greeks either, as they were basically the admixture of Indo-European Greek speakers and the barbarians locals in Greece (e.g. Pelasgians). Ancient Athens is by no sane person regarded as a "multi-ethnic city-state", therefore your logic is academically false. Miskin 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks.

But we are not calling them what they called themselves either, because the term "Romans" is obviously misleading. Since we're using a made-up terminology we might as well give it some value. In other words, what the Byzantines and many other medieval civilizations called themselves is irrelevant. The foreigners called them Greeks since the 7th or 8th century BC, and after the 4rth crusade the Byzantines called themselves Greek as well. So as you see the "Greek Empire" is not really coming out of the blue here.

There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?)

The title "Macedonian" has nothing to do with the modern Macedonian Slavic nation. Basil I was of Armenian origin but the majority of the Dynasty was pretty much Greek (Roman even). Secondly the cities of Greek Macedonia, neither in Byzantium neither in the Ottoman Empire, never maintained a significant Slavic population (especially not Thessaloniki). Actually the Slavs were an ethnic minority within the Empire which had always been trying to gain some political power but never achieved it. On the other hand many scholars support that one of the reasons of the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Manzikert was because of the Armenian, Slavic, Bulgarian etc missionaries in the Byzantine army. Those things proves that a Byzantine Greek nationality did exist, and the non-Greek ethnic groups that existed within the empire were in fact considered ethically foreigners to the "Byzantine" nation. The fact that ethnic distinctions such as "Armenians, Arvanites, Bulgars, Slavs, Turks" existed within the Empire, proves that there actually was a nation. Miskin 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that the Macedonian Emperors were Slavs. Slavs invaded and took over much of the Balkans (including much of mainland Greece) in the early 7th century. This area, still presumably inhabited by Slavs, was reconquered by the Macedonian Emperors. Meaning that there were a ton of Slavs (including Bulgarians) in the Byzantine Empire as it stood between the 10th century and the 13th century. Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary name. john k 03:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Slavs were in regions that were called Sclavinias, not all over the place and not in the big cities. The majority of the Sclavinias were eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors and is therefore no argument on the ethnic composition of the empire (I can be specific on this if you want). Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As to whether Salonica was Slavic in the 15th century, I really wasn't sure - certainly it was not a terribly Greek city by the beginning of the 20th century, and, as I noted, there were Slavs all over the place starting in the 7th century.

Slavs never established a presence neither in big cities neither in the government. Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Also - on what basis do you claim that westerners called it the "Greek Empire" from the 4th century. I've never heard it called anything but the "Eastern Empire" or the "Roman Empire" at least up through the Justinian period (Justinian, recall, was a native Latin-speaker, as were his successors through Maurice, I think). Greek didn't become the language of the Empire until Heraclius, and even then I'm not sure westerners would have called it the "Greek Empire" until after Charlemagne. john k 03:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's ironic that you mention Justinian as an example of a native Latin-speaker. Justinian wrote Novellae in Greek, excusing himself for using the mother language of his own and of the Empire (Greek) instead of the father language (Latin). Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century. The significant change in the empire's territory occured at the 7th century, which then gave rise to the nationalist movement. The first surviving reports of a conscious nationalist awareness date from the 9th century, which lie in par with parallel developments in Western Europe, so it really isnt an extreme position. Nationalism was a gradual development that took place over several centuries. By the time of the fall of Constantinople in 1204 it was already complete. We would expect that Liutpand's testimony would have greater impact to us when he said that the dispute with the Byzantines was a dispute among nations and settle the matter of nationality permanently.

Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on. Are you familiar with the phrase ethnic-minoritiy? It is the group or groups of people that differ in their race or culture from the majority of the people They exist in every state, including modern nation-states, and if the presence defines multi-ethnicity then we all live in multi-ethnic countries today. The truth of the matter is that such groups are recognized certain priviliges in order to protect them from the norm exactly because they are considered little less than foreigners inside their own country. The Armenians were a divided nation that lived on the borders between Byzantium and Persia. The population that lived within Asia Minor numbered 1/10th of the Greeks in that region, and at the same time were considered a culturally distinct people, meaning that they differentiated themselves from Byzantines, qualifying as a ethnic-minority status. The limited impact they had in the state was done from participation in the army, and of Byzantium's 91 emperors only 3 were of Armenian origin. And the Illyrian emperors are not considered to be Byzantines, Diocletian himself being on the borderline.

Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. - As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it obviously was. Even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Ethnic is an ambiguous term, which can mean either "race" or "culture" or both. In the case of Byzantium, the empire undoubtebly is held to be multi-ethnic, in that is was comprised of a variety of peoples of comparable population, up and until the reign of Heraclius when most of ancient Roman empire territories still existed. But from Heraclius and onwards, the overwhelming majority of the population was Greek, and in the last 4 centuries exclusively Greek. Non-Greek populations never reached significant numbers.

In the year 800, the composition of the Byzantine state was:

• Asia Minor: about 800,000 Armenians from 8 million Greeks
• Greece proper: about 200,000 Albanians from 2 million Greeks
• Balkan protectorates and ducates: 3 million (figures by Mcevedy and Jones, Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth, 1978)

A large part of the Balkan, Italian and Asian (non-Asia Minor) territories were organized into Ducates or Protectorates, technixally part of the empire, but in practice independent states meant to protect inner lands. Citizenship was not extended to the conquered territories, so the Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, Lombards, Georgians, Venetians or any conquered people were never put in the process of assimilation. In the same way India was part of the British empire, but Indians were not considered British. The autocephaly of Churches is an even better indication of the political enviroment in Byzantium. The Church in Constantinople remained authoritative for the Byzantines, while non-Roman people had their own Churches recognized by the ecumenical Patriarch, including the Armenians.

Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary name. The only difference between medieval and modern nationalism is that today it is attached to the state. Medieval kingdoms could legitimately expand their territories into foreign nations while today the right of every nation to rule itself is considered universal and supreme. Liutprand cursed the Byzantines for imprisoning him, and quoted Virgil's Aeneid to demonstrate his exasperation for the Greeks.

The problem with the opening sentense is that "Greek speaking" leaves room for misinterpretation, implying that others beside the Greeks may have lived within Byzantium speaking Greek, which simply isnt true. Since nationality is a verifiable medieval product, what's wrong with stating the obvious and saying that Byzantium was a medieval Greek state, a phrase prefered by academics also, when that's exactly what it was most of the time? Colossus 10:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there were others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium and spoke Greek in addition to their own languages, and "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity throughout its history. Byzantine nationality was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?--Theathenae 10:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there were others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium and spoke Greek in addition to their own languages Who were those "other" nations that that spoke Greek despite being of non-Greek origin? Because the term Greek-speaking refers to a person for whom Greek is the mother tongue and not a second language. In the same way English-speaking refers to that person for whom English is first language, not second. In danger of stating the obvious, no people other than Greeks spoke Greek. Which is why "Greek-speaking" is a paradox and should be reverted back.

"Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity throughout its history. You speak of neutral as if one party or another is bound to be wronged by the truth. Ignoring the other inadequacies deriving from such a characterization, Greek-speaking indicates only the empire's language, which is obvious to all anyway since only one major group inhabited its territories. In the same way you dont need to mention the language of the Holy Roman Empire is you can establish before hand its medieval Germany your talking about.

Byzantine nationality was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Which was the reason behind the autocephaly of the Orthodox Churches. Non-Byzantines where granted autocephalous status for their own Churches while the Greeks maintained their ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople for themselves - itself, more proof that Byzantines and Greeks identified.

Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?-- With the exception of "Greek-Orthodox", the other terms presuppose the existence of non-Greek groups of comparable population to the Greeks, which we've already established isnt true, making the idea of "leading" or "dominating" over something negeligible, a moot point. "Greek-Orthodox, already mentioned in the article, is virtually synonymus with "Christian state of the Greek nation" so I dont understand why then the change in the first place. Colossus 16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How about 'predominantly Greek'?

Bathrobe

NPOV

User:AlexR, why dont you discuss with us you reservations about NPOV and perhaps we can resolve them here, instead of putting a clean up tag in the main article waiting for a Byzantologist to notice it. Colossus 18:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks

The Names of the Greeks article on the bottom of the History of Greece template became a Featured Article Candidate. Come vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Colossus 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Concluding remarks

I changed the conclusion to something a bit more dramatic. I just want to qualify one of my statements that the Byzantine Empire has laid the foundations of western civilisation as we know it.

• preserved ancient knowledge
• was the empire that introduced christianity to Europe
• Justinian's revamped law code of old Roman law, is the basis of most of modern Europes codified law
• was the barrier between Europe and the Middle East - keeping the Muslim empires for over running Europe
• had a central role to play in the Crusades, of whose affect on the world are too numerous to list
• was the cultural, economic and political superpower for the middle ages

Elias Bizannes 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you go to such great lengths?

To please everybody's concerns? I always see a lot of angry Italians on these boards demanding the name be changed to 'Roman', I agree with them, ironically enough - As the article states, Latins had lost their Romanic Heritage with the Norman and other preceeding Invasions. Call it The Roman Empire, or ERE, but it still doesn't change Historical Fact, the Empire wasn't Latin, so it certainly wasn't Roman in the 'Traditional' sense that most think of, thats why we refer to the inhabitants (Greeks) as Byzantines, because there was such a sea change in every aspect of The Empire, right up to the dominant population. This NPOV is so pathetic, anyone can use it as an excuse for editing, granted, I haven't read as much as some of the more knowledgable people on these forums, but thats because I am 16 years old, but from what I have read - The Empire wasn't just dominantly Greek, it was Greek full stop. Should we also give equal coverage to Global Warming denialists just because it happens to be an opinion (disregarding the fact 99% of all climatologists consider their claims totally erroneus). Lets get one thing straight, the Empire wasn't Latin, it wasn't Albanian, it wasn't Armenian, it was Greek, lets just put down Historical fact ffs! Instead of pandering to everyones demands to always attribute someone elses history to their own. Same with the Alexander question, I haven't seen one god damn person mention that the first slavs to enter The Balkans came in 555AD, which makes their claim upon Alexander utterly fradulent, no.... we've got to *give* them equal coverage as if their claims are backed up by ANY kind of Historical fact. Actually, if that's the case, why doesn't somebody go and devote half of the Holocaust page to revisionist theories? We all know *that* wouldn't happen, but it's perfectly alright for others to attribute Greek History as their own, angry Italians, Albanians and even Bulgarians!

I share your concerns, and agree, especially given my Greek backgroud and this naturally affects my pride (and hence bias). However, understand something: history is politics. And modern politicians use the past to achieve ends in the present and future, so that is why we need to tred a difficult line.

I have done a lot of reading on the empire - in fact I just read Norwich's condensed history of the entire period - and I was surprised to then read this Wikipedia article on how it was a Greek state. Never heard that perspective, and I think there is an element of truth about it, but I don't agree with it. Why? Because the definition of empire, at least in my eyes, is the conquering of foreign cultures. By that definition, the Byzantines were an empire because they ruled parts of Latin Italy, regions that are now serbia, the Bulgars, and the Egyptians. Sure, they spoke Greek - but language is only one aspect of identity. Modern Greeks today, would consider Greek language, and christianity (especially Orthodoxy) as what constitutes someone being "Greek". But that is now. Back then, they considered themselves Romans. They called themselves Roman. They never called themselves Byzantine. So the problem is, trying to balance our modern day perspective, with their own perspective, to get the closest we can to the truth. But we never will get the truth, and that is why history is so great - because it is a reflection of times when people wrote, and those views reflect what our descndants will consider of us when one day, we are history as well. Elias Bizannes 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Name in infobox

Any opinions on what the name of this entity should be at the top of the infobox? Currently it is:

Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων

Imperium Romanorum

Empire of the Romans

(Byzantine Empire)

Seems a bit much to have 4 names given. Also, does "Imperium Romanorum" really mean "Empire of the Romans"? In the Roman Empire box, it is translated as "Roman Empire". --JW1805 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It literally means "of the Romans", yes (Roman Empire would literally be Imperium Romanum). I don't know what they called themselves in Latin, but in Greek they usually just called the empire "Romania" and the emperor was "emperor of the Romans." This is all kind of silly, it would probably be most useful just to have "Byzantine Empire" in the box, but whoever creates the rules for these boxes would have it otherwise, I guess. Adam Bishop 18:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, was the Roman Empire itself not the Empire of the Romans (IMPERIVM ROMANORVM), rather than the "Roman Empire" (IMPERIVM ROMANVM) per se?--Theathenae 18:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the reasoning for not including "Byzantine Empire" is that its already in the main title, and the infobox should be for native terminology. I also dont understand why the latin title needs to be kept. There was no such thing as "official language" in the Roman empire, and if there were it was co-official with Greek, with Latin never extensively used in the East. It which would be misleading to attach 11 centuries of history to a latin title barely used for 2 or 3. That being said, I am against infoboxes anyway. Colossus 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I vote to just have:

Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων

Byzantine Empire

It has the name basically used at the time, in the most common language, and the modern name. Putting "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans" in English and Latin is just confusing and unnecessary.--JW1805 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Empire of the Romans"?? Who's coming up with that crap? That's completely incorrect, not in use, and misleading. The direct English translation of the Byzantine usage of the word "Roman" is Romaic. Look it up in any English dictionary. Roman is referring to the Romans. Miskin 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"that crap"??? The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves ROMANS. The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc. However, it would have been an insult for a Byzantine to be called Byzantine. A Greek should tell you. I am not one but I take serious insult if somebody changes the translation of the OFFICIAL name in the infobox, which is EMPIRE OF THE ROMANS, because I am an Orthodox Christian and a Romanian. Now the words "that crap" are seriously offensive, especially because you made no effort to learn about the HISTORICAL significance of the words and you just took a dictionary and translated the greek word. The dictionary obviously was biased. It is like instead of saying to a Russian: "You come from a Slavic people" (because Russians are a part of the group of peoples known as Slavs) "You come from a slave people."

For details about the name of the Byzantines see the article http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
Regarding the info box that place is for the OFFICIAL NAME of the country. In Greek it's Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. As Greek was the main language used in the Empire that will go first. Imperium Romanorum is the name in Latin and it means THE VERY SAME THING. Latin was widely used in a diglossy with Greek until the 7th-8th centuries in the Empire, it will go second. After that the thranslation in English should come and that is (approximatively) Empire of the Romans. I say approximatively because Imperium can be also translated with "Power", "Authority" (although Auctoritas can also be translated with "Authority"; but in Latin Imperium and Auctoritas are very different things), "Domain", "Country" etc. Than, in brackets (Byzantine Empire), the name by which the Empire is known today in English. "Empire of the Romans" MUST be written, because the Greek and Latin words need to be translated (maybe someone who reads this article doesn't know Greek or Latin, so they should know how the Empire was called officially). "Byzantine Empire" should also be present, because this is the name used today by most people, but it should be in brackets because it was NEVER USED BY THE BYZANTINES THEMSELVES.
Therefore, the name in the infobox should be:

Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων

Imperium Romanorum

Empire of the Romans

(Byzantine Empire)

Q.E.D.

• That's all well and good, but four names is just to much. The compromise: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων ; Roman (Byzantine) Empire is uncluttered and has all the necessary information. The Latin, and "Empire of the Romans" just isn't necessary. Note that the text of the article has "Roman Empire", and that is how it is translated at Roman Empire as well. --JW1805 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I won't hold to that, if you so consider, just note the correct translation. I don't want to enter a polemic or fight with any of you, therefore if I have offended any of you please forgive me. After all, as our Holy Church teaches us, the Empire of God is not of this world. But there may be persons who may take it more seriously. I for one agree with this name, that you propose.
Also, Miskin, I didn't take offense in a personal way. At least I'm not taking anymore. But it is rather offensive in a general way. And the explanation about the meaning of the name is for you. It's not misleading, it is correct. The Greeks considered themselves Romans at that time. As for the offense part, you know, when speaking about anything in the Balkans (by the way, I don't like this name - Balkans), its hard not to raise emotions. I hope I didn't started a vendetta... :)

The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves ROMANS.

Justinian was not a native Latin speaker as he was born and raised in the Eastern part of the Empire. He learned Latin by being a member of a "royal" bloodline and eventually by becoming a Roman Emperor. His native language however was Romaic and this is verified by his written works. Justinian wrote in Classical Latin and in Medieval Greek, the former being a literary form of speech with no native speakers and the latter the vernacular of the Byzantines. He probably didn't speak the vernacular Vulgar Latin that was spoken in the Western part of the empire at the time. For that reason in his 'Novellae' he wrote: "ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν, είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας". That means "We didn't write the law in our paternal language, but in our common language of Greece, so that everyone will be familiar with its context". Miskin 08:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc.

No in fact they coined various terms much earlier, such as "Imperium Graecorum". "Romaic" was not a coined title, it was a direct translation. Miskin 08:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How to edit this?

By preserving the ancient world, and forging the medieval, the Byzantine Empire's influence is hard to truly grasp. However, to deny history the chance to acknowledge its existence, is to deny the origins of Western civilization as we know it.

I can't get any content out of this: it's the parsing that's truly hard to grasp, I trow. And who's denying history the chance to acknowledge its existence? Not I for one. --Wetman 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not particularly attached to the sentence, so change it if you want (yes, I wrote it). However, what I mean is that it is hard to list the contributions the Byzantine Empire made to society, because it was a cultural empire that has been lost in time - with its legacy absorbed into other cultures like the Russian and Ottoman empires.

Denial in history: just look at the curiculum of American and European text books, as demostrated with the opening quotation at the begining of the section. Need another example? Gibbon. Maybe not deny its existance, but indrectly the downplaying by Gibbon for example, almost hides the empire under a rug of obscurity. Elias Bizannes 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Legacy and Importance section

Does this sentence seem contradictory:

"The Roman Empire of the East was founded on Monday 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday 29 May 1453 - although it had already come into being when Diocletian split the Roman Empire in 286, and it was still alive when Trebizond finally fell in 1461."

I'm not sure about this entire section. It seems familiar somehow, especially the sentence about "Robert Byron, one of the first great 20th century Philhellenes..." Isn't that from Norwich's book (at the end, I think)? Could somebody check to see if this section is plagiarized?--JW1805 17:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it, and yes, the quote is from Norwich. However, he is aknowledged in the bibliography so I didn't think it was neccessary to state it was from his book, as he wasn't the person that made the quote.

The entire section is definately not plagiarised. I used Norwich as a source when I researched it, but based it mainly on internet material to get ideas on composing the section. The themes may cover ones Norwich used, but they are completely my own words. Actually to tell you the truth, I found Norwich quite useless when I was trying to get inspiration for content of this section.

As for it being contradictory, I think it just needs to be worded better. When I added that whole section, I made sure I did not delete any other previous content, and integrated past sentences into the bits I added. The whole Diocletion and Trebizond bits are examples of me trying to weave previous content into the new content. Having said that though, as the Byzantine Empire is just a histiographical term, the whole dating of the issue is going to be a little fuzzy and this sentence aknoweldges that.Elias Bizannes 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

The page has some great images, but they need a better layout as they make the page look cluttered. I also think we should remove the image "The Byzantine Empire in 1265 (William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, 1911)" because it is duplicate information from another map. The other map is consistent with other pictures, hence providing better comparison. And the map is a little hard to read, and needs to be zoomed in to understand it. As the picture exists on many other Wikipedia articles, I think it will do no harm to remove it. Anyone agree? Elias Bizannes 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Term "Byzantine"

"Standardization of the term did not occur until the 17th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu..." Montesquieu is an 18th-century author. Was the term standardized by a previous writer, in the 17th century? I'm not competent to fix this myself. --Wetman 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is probably meant to read 18th century. --Tokle 19:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

All very interesting, but what is the word's etymology? It doesen't say. More importantly, the impression the reader receives is that choosing between 'Roman' or 'Byzantine' is merely a matter of terminology. It fails to emphasize the qualitative difference between the Roman Empire of antiquity and the Byzantine Empire which emerged in late antiquity - however you date that change. That is akin to referring to the Holy Roman Empire as if it was just the Roman Empire of a later period. RCSB 10:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The word stems from the old greek city of Byzantium, which Constantine the Great refounded as Constantinople (Nova Roma). --Tokle 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article: a project?

I have the Britannica and its article about the Byzantine Empire i hugely superior that our on Wikipedia. I'm trying to improve as possible using Ostrogorsky, Norwich and a German book. I have arrived at Justinian era but the work is hard, especially 'cause at the same time I'm writing the History of Rome. Nobody eager to collaborate? Nobody could use the infos in the Interwiki articles cited above. Anyway, for I'm Italian motherlanguage, if you can keep waching this article to correct my grammar errors. user:Attilios, from Late October.

It depends. What is it about this article that strikes to you so badly? Please be specific before making large edits. Miskin 13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Language and ethnic orgins of MACEDONIAN DYNASTY

Can some one here say exactly what was the languiage being spoken by the Macedonian dynasty during the byzantine empire, thankyou

It was Greek - there was never a slavic language that was used in the business of the empire from what I understand. Norfolk says the founder of the dynasty was Armenian, although there is contention on this point. This pro-Macedonian website *http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/RomanMacedonia/MacedonianDynasty.htm) says he may be a mixture of slavic and armenian. However also take this website with a grain of salt - it is a little nationalistic, and in some cases, inaccurate (from my perspective on history)Elias Bizannes 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the Population of the Balkans in the middle ages

What exactly nationalitys was in the balkans in the middle ages, specially in south balkans, any one have statistiks for this thanks user:Intranetman

Byzantium never really maintained its hold on most of Balkan territory, not even in its early centuries after the Fall of Rome until Basileus Heraclius. Byzantine lands were limited to Greek speaking territories such as Greece proper and Asia Minor, and so whatever form of nationalism developed reflected that demography. The "Identity" section of the article deals with that. A pan-Balkanic ethnic cartography would be inapropriate as other political entities also developed alongside Byzantium. Colossus 17:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What you say can only be partly accepled. The limes danubianus survived quite well till the death of Justinian (565), and started crumbling only after, WITHOUT the exception of Heraclius. And it cannot be forgotten that the Balkans were once again unified in 1018 and remained so till 1186, and that Greece was hardly a part of the Empire in much of the 7th and 8th century, as Ostrogrorsky remembers Aldux 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture Not Showing on Article

I have made many changes to the Byzantine Empire article and one of those changes entailed the placing of a more accurate picture of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 A.D. I tried to maintain the previous picture that I am now trying to replace, but it just would not appear on the article. Strange.

Anyway, I would not mind if someone (or anyone) would help me place the new picture I found on the Byzantine Empire article and somehow fix this little problem of a Wikipedia article not showing a picture.

Later. -Deucalionite 11/26/05 3:54 P.M. EST

Infobox

I'm assuming the infobox was what was being discussed in the above "Flag of the Byzantine Empire" section above. It was added back to this page, and I reverted it. A template isn't really such a bad idea (although the article already has the timeline infobox at the top) but this one needed some work. The problem, as I see it, is it's just too difficult to fill in the "Area", "Population" fields (since it varied greatly over the 1000 year history), "Establishment", "First Emperor" fields (since there is no real dividing line between the "Byzantine" and "Roman" Empires). And to put Preceding State as Roman Empire is sort of misleading as well. Plus, there is already plenty of maps on this page. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, still I must point out that most of the countries articles have these "template infoboxes". Perhaps the template schould simply be improved and perhaps merged with the "timeline infobox".

Another point I find "strange": why doesn´t the "timeline infobox" have its own "template/page"? It´s very dificult to expand and improve it.

I read the discussion and can only say that if the flag and motto were wrong or/and outdated, simply improve the template. Flamarande

Byzantine Empire timeline infobox

Hi, I made this "Template: Byzantine Empire timeline infobox" in order to improve the Byzantine Empire article.

I (personal opinion , but I hope that you agree) do think that the infobox being wholly "inside" of the article only confused and scared (it scarred me) ppl away from any antempt to improve it (and to improve the articles is what Wikipedia is all about).

It also seems to be a "official policy" in the making of articles.

It also simply "simplifies" things.

It also ocuppied a lot of space, and the article for itself is "too big" already. Perhaps somebody can merge some things of the Template:Byzantine Empire infobox, if only the "undisputed stuff".

easier , simpler , better

If you don´t agree (but try it out, before judging, I beg you) simply revert it.Flamarande 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, and the code is certainly much cleaner. Nice work! Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the code definitely looks much cleaner, and it should be less "scary" and much easier for new users to edit. Good job! Squalla 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Roman (Byzantine) Empire

How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous? Why is it so hard for some people to realize that we're using exonyms for this state? It was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself, hence the need to use an exonym. No single scholar refers to this state simply as the "Roman Empire", and trust me but they have their reasons not to. Just use the same names that the scholar use and get over this template-title search once and for all. Miskin 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous?

Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that POV is not the only one possible. A strong argument can be made that it was indeed the Roman Empire, since the Roman Emperor moved his capital to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople. "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is a useful way of expressing these two truths—that the empire in question is in fact the same empire as that founded at Rome and that there is nevertheless a categorical distinction based on geography and other historical factors. (Not all scholars use "Byzantine Empire," by the way.) User:ASDamick/sig 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only say that the name of "this" empire is "fiercly" disputed. The term "byzantine" itself was invented by scholars like Hieronymus Wolf, Edward Gibbon and Montesquieu and gradually entered common use.

I read "Byzantium - a history" by John Haldon ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 and I quote: "The name Byzantium is a convenient convention, coined by French scholars during the seventeenth century"... .

Another problem seems to be that "byzantine" is a "somewhat" derrogative term (or at least it used to be) thanks to Edward Gibbson and the other scholars who were everything but fair. No "NPOV" policy in that time.

Same source: "Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, whithout a single exception, the most thouroughly base and despicable form that civilation has yet assumed. There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destite of all forms and elements of gratness, and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically applied...The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues os priests, eunuchs, and omen, ofpoisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude." by Historian William E. H.Lecky (1869), A history of european morals from Augustus to Charlemagne

(see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article)

I read the whole book and got the impression that the name is disputed by scholars themselves and it appears that some of them use it only in a "later" context.

Don´t forget that some nations are proud of this empire as they seem themselves "heirs" to it.

Myself? I would like to call this article: "Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire" (in my personal opinion the more correct name) but I fear to even begin a debate about this. Flamarande 17:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we're definitely not going to call it that. It's the Byzantine Empire and that's where it's going to stay. This is just what it's called, leave it alone. Adam Bishop 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that Flamarande 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article name should remain Byzantine Empire, since that is the most common name used in English scholarship, but I do think it's useful to use "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" at the top of the template. User:ASDamick/sig 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You are accusing me for passing a POV and yet you admit that you prefer to use a term which is NOT used by the majority of the contemporary scholars. As for my "POV" on the Byzantine Empire not being ethnically a Roman Empire, this is simply proved by the Byzantine tendency to gradually favour the use of "Greek" over "Roman" after the first sack of Constantinople. Speaking of which, even the term "Greek Empire" would be closer to the truth than "Roman (Byzantine)". At least it wouldn't be an POV misinterpretation nor a derogatory exonym. The fact is that the Byzantine Empire was not recognized simply as "Roman" by the majority of the non-Byzantines at the time. In fact it is a frequent confusion in various medieval texts referring to the Byzantines both as Greeks and as Romans. Anyway the use of the POV, english-translated "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is honestly ludicrous on the template. WP policy should be respected by using the best academically attested terminology here. There are countless examples of derogatory terms being standardised in a similar fashion. The term "Welsh" meaning "foreigner" in Old Western Germanic, or the word "Arab" meaning "black" in Hellenistic Greek, they both now have an official use and nobody knows about their real meaning. Miskin 17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What does ethnicity have to do with any of it? The Apostle Paul was a Roman, yet his ethnicity was certainly not Italian. User:ASDamick/sig 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. But that's only because the word "Italian" didn't exist neither as an ethnicity nor as a collective term until some 1200 years later maybe, and "Roman" didn't ever imply "Italian" before 1870. Anyway I don't see what's that got to do with anything. Miskin 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Red herring. "Roman" in the sense of "Empire" has everything to do with a political reality, yet you seem to be insisting that there's nothing "Roman" about the "Byzantine Empire" because its people were ethnically Greek. I brought up Paul as an example of someone who was ethnically Jewish yet still politically a Roman, to disprove the notion that ethnicity has anything to do with the location and nature of the Empire. If not Italian, which ethnicity did you have in mind, anyway? User:ASDamick/sig 18:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh brother, here begins the eternal discussion:

Look, most of the ppl (here in wikipedia) know that the term was invented. Everybody has a POV (even scholars, see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article) As far as the majority (here in Wikipedia) knows, the majority of comtemporary scholars do use that term allthough it is "wrong" (and scholars admit that fact). The ordinary person will look for "Byzantine empire". Alltough the term was invented by scholars and is wrong, it is still used by the majority of ppl. Flamarande 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Flamarandre. Miskin 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if you agre with me, you have to admit that "Byzantine Empire" is the most apropiate name for this article.Flamarande 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I do

When did this become a discussion of the name of the article? The question was regarding the English translation for the Greek text at the top of the template. User:ASDamick/sig 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I really hope that plain old truth is valued here. Look ASDamick we allready agreed that Roman (Byzantine) Empire is the most apropiate name. This whole discussion started as you answered: "Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that POV is not the only one possible." instead of explaining the real reasons. As a matter of fact the POV of Miskin is very defendable. And by the way: St Paul was a roman citizen but ethnicaly he was a Jew (as far as I know) born in Anatolia. Flamarande 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The "isolated opinion" to which I referred was that "'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous," and nothing else. Miskin's description of the translation as "extremely ridiculous" were then based on the idea that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman, which he later explained was because it was not ethnically Roman. I then objected to that, because I don't know of any reputable scholarship which defines "Roman Empire" by ethnicity.

My objections are thus to the POV that

• "'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous"
• "It was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself"
• "Roman Empire" is an ethnic designation which "Greeks" don't deserve.

...and that's all. User:ASDamick/sig 19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are discussing the translation of the Greek text at the top of the Timeline-template; since the Greek text reads "Roman Empire", then obviously that should be the translation. No matter if the most commonly used term is "Byzantine". --Tokle 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don´t translate that text, as it would only confuse the vast majority (but if you do, then add to the greek version "(Byzantine)"). This argument started with a misunderstandig (mea culpa). Let´s not continue a sterile discussion about the correctness of the term "Byzantine" or "Roman (Byzantine) Empire". Flamarande 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Don´t add salt to the wound, ok?

That whole template isn't even necessary in the first place, nor is it necessary to have either the Greek or English name at the top of it. The Greek and English names are explained at the beginning of the article anyway. Adam Bishop 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote down my reasons for making this template. It´s one "point" above. Flamarande 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know the term "Eastern Roman Empire" could also do! Astavrou 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)