Talk:Byzantine Empire

American English VS British English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serious mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you try Encyclopedia Britannica [1]. Take a look at the list of rulers: it begins in 476. This isn't something which we can debate and decide for ourselves. We only reflect what is taught in school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion: Orthodox Christianity

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

Name and other issues

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable references and the sentence it is sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

So the sentence, "Modern historians, however, view the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) as the beginning of Byzantine history proper since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek." could to be replaced by, "The transition to Byzantine history finally begins, during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek.", which the Ostrogorsky source should support. My apologies for the slow response. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Byron's "Triple-Fusion" theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countries today

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

Sourcing

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

States

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

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

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

Greek was always the culture of Rome

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