Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 7

Archives

08/2003–08/2006

Opening paragraph

Roydosan and Hectorian, this opening paragraph bullshit is getting tiresome. Why do we have a paragraph like that anyway? It tells us nothing about what the Byzantine Empire actually was. Both versions are useless and uninformative. Adam Bishop 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that pointing out Byzantium's heritage to the Hellenistic world is uninformative; it explains how a "Roman Empire" ends up being called "Greek Empire" and being inhabited by Greeks, but I'm giving up on the head anyway. Roydosan has already made up his mind and is clearly in some sort of denial about this whole thing, and imo there's no more use trying to talk sense into him. He's changed sourced content, he's even removed direct citations and replaced them with his POV. I restored the native name on the head and removed striking OR terms such as "Greek speaking Romans of the Eastern Empire". Finally I'm replacing "Greco-Roman" with "Hellenistic", the term used in the OHB i.e. the source cited right next to the claim. Regards. Miskin 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As Miskin says, the Hellenization from Constantine until it's effective culmination under Heraclius is integral to the Empire, it explains why we draw the distinction. Western Europeans have no right to this History, they have already appropriated Classical Roman History away from the Italians (thanks to their enlightenment bullshitters). We will not let them do the same, we Greeks are a proud and ancient people.

No-one is disputing that the Greeks are a proud and ancient people but an encyclopedia is a place for facts not for nationalist sentiment. Maybe you should read NPOV and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Roydosan 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the mention : "During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks" due to the increasing dominance of its Greek population and distinct culture. " Since this is quite true and expresse the change that came over the empire's long existance. I'l also take this time to support Roydosan's point on Greeks in Alexandria and Antioch. Even to this day both cities hold an important greek minority. As to anonymous... World influencing civilisations are to be cherished and respected by all. Every one as a right to history, one cannot own it, one cannot sell it; it was, it is and will be. Dryzen 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't bringing forward any nationalist sentiments, I was just striving to make this article reflect the scholarly neutrality that some wikipedia articles lack. Roydosan's pan-roman views are unfortunately very poorly supported. Dryzen I never denied the undisputed fact that Alexandria and Antioch were Greek cities, I was just annoyed by Roydosan's use of his own terminology such as "Greek-speaking Romans". Frankly I don't know what he's trying to prove, but that edits is completely out of context and makes no sense with the rest of the paragraph. I think he was trying to imply that Alexandria and the urban centres of the Eastern Roman world were in fact inhabited by Hellenized Romans, something which would ignore all sources on the huge Greek colonisation waves of the Hellenistic age. Either way Roydosan makes edits based on his erroneous POV and imperfect understanding of the region's ancient history. He seems to be under the impression that the term "Hellenistic world" refers strictly to the Greek peninsula, and that all "Greeks" were confined within those borders (in the style of the modern Italian nation). Miskin 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing wording

This, from the fourth paragraph of the'Crisis and fragmentation' section, makes no sense to me: "However, due to treachery from his opponents who deserted him on the field of battle...". Wouldn't 'deserting him on the field of battle' be a rather chivalrous thing for his opponents to do?  ;-) Obviously something different is meant but I don't know enough details to fix it correctly myself. Thank you. -LambaJan 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They were his opponents in his own army, who were treacherous, but Romanus didn't know that until they deserted him. Adam Bishop 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

History template?

Shall we put a footer History template in, Byzantine History is so huge I think it merits it.

Byzantine army article needs a lot of work

I am surprised by how little interest there seems to be in the Byzantine army - such an important article, so closely related to Byzantine Empire. It really needs some work - there are whole sections missing, there is very little about where and against whom the army fought, how effective it was, or any mention of its major battles. I've been doing quite a lot of work on it recently, but it needs more. Please, surely there must be somebody on here who knows or cares about this article, and would be willing to help improve it? It's been 7 months since my last appeal for help, but apart from some contributions by Dryzen, almost nothing has been done by anyone other than myself... Bigdaddy1204 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for revert

My revert was not meant to remove Roydosan's claimed sourced edits (which there are not, since there is neither a footnote nor any reference), but to restore edits that he had removed [1]. Having in mind that he had tried to removed in the past every info he could that linked Byzantium to the Greeks, the removal on his behalf of the info in the previously given link, justifies perfectly my revert. --Hectorian 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the comment was referenced (check what you removed on the edit history) and I strongly object to your statement that I have tried to removed in the past every info he could that linked Byzantium to the Greeks. Since that is not the case at all. Rather I have only sought accuracy not POV pushing. I find it ironic that the Greek POV pushers insist on emphasising the Latin's reference to Byzantium as the 'Imperium Graecorum' etc since that was used as a term of insult when referring to the Byzantine Greeks. Roydosan 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are u sure it was? see your edit [2]. U have editted something that looks like a source, but which does not appear as a footnote, or a reference or an external link... It is just a name and title in <...>! The same happened the next time u reverted me [3].

As for what have u tried to remove from this article, i am too lazy to search the article's history... However, the users who have been involved in this article know well. If i should be a bit less "poisonous" and more accurate, i would say that u have tried to reduce the Greek character of Byzantium and to emphasize its Latin (towards the limis of a "Pan-Latinism"!). As for how "insulting" was the term 'Imperium Graecorum' for the Medieval Greeks, i can only make a comparison with the Greek name (Franks) of that time for Charlegmagne's Empire: he and his citizens claimed to be the successors of the Romans, however they were Franks... and so claimed the Byzantine emperors and citizens, however they were Greeks... The term 'Roman' had long ago stopped been synonymous with the people of Rome... --Hectorian 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't make the reference up if that is what you're implying - I can easily quote the page numbers or quote it verbatim if thats your problem. As for this: If i should be a bit less "poisonous" and more accurate, i would say that u have tried to reduce the Greek character of Byzantium and to emphasize its Latin (towards the limis of a "Pan-Latinism"!). As we in England would say this is complete bollocks. I have never denied that Byzantium became a Greek empire just that it was not the Greek empire. Why on earth I would have a Latinising agenda is beyond me and I challenge you to substantiate this accusation if you can. As For Charlegmagne he and his citizens claimed to be the successors of the Romans No they didn't - Charlegmagne continued to refer to himself as King of the Franks after his coronation (this is verifiable). The term 'Roman' had long ago stopped been synonymous with the people of Rome This is only what I have argued all along (and it is verifiable) which is why it is no insult to refer to Byzantium as the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Greeks as Romans. Roydosan 08:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The main point about identity should just be summed up by Ostrogorsky's quote, which calls the Byzantine empire something like "The Greek Empire of the Roman State" (though that quote is probably wrong) I remember the exact quote did sum up the Empire's identity pretty well.

Think about it in these terms, if the part of the Roman Empire that had survived had been Britain, then do you think we would be calling it anything other than a 'British Empire'? I can imagine if that had been the case instead of the disdain and hatred british enlightenment atheists (a strong tradition that continues with bigots like Richard Dawkins to this day) showed towards Byzantium would be turned full circle and they would have echoed their universal approval at this 'British Roman Empire' which 'kept the old lights of learning and civilization alive' while praising the 'immaculate beauty of British-Roman mosaics in British Roman Churches'.

The British themselves would've probably called it "The Roman Empire". If it had survived long enough, maybe even "The Roman Empire of the British Nation" or something like that. ;)

Regarding the debate: "Roman" had long ceased to refer to any ethnic or even cultural group. "Roman Empire" denoted "the universal, only, REAL Empire, of which the others are only inferior mock-ups". In that way, to deny the Byzantines the epithet "Roman" *was* denigrating, as it denied their claim to be the universal empire, rightfully ruling the known world. This had nothing to do with culture, religion, language or even ethnicity. The "British Empire" analogy is not a bad one: calling itself "Roman Empire", it would have laid claim to rule Rome and the world. When Charlemagne would call it "British", he would have suggested that they should just stay on their island and keep out of the world-ruling business. ;)

So, why not include all information? I can see no real error in any of them, and both are useful:

Henceforth, it was prevalent in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch - a slight to the Byzantines as it threatened their sovereignty, but as Imperator Graecorum (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as Imperium Graecorum, Graecia, Terra Graecorum or even Imperium Constantinopolitanum.

From the Eastern point of view, the Byzantine court under the Empress Irene allowed Charlegmagne and his successors as to use the title Basileus as long as they did not claim to be the Basileus ton Romaion - a title reserved for the emperor in Constantinople.

Or something like that. Varana 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Varana, if it had survived in Britain my point is not that the Brits themselves would have called themselves 'The British Empire' but that every single serious scholar from the enlightenment and onwards period would have called them a 'British Empire' or a 'British Roman Empire'.

I agree with you about the term 'Roman' losing it's ethnic designation as someone from Latium long ago, but the point is the areas of the Roman Empire that survived were in the Hellenized Greek East, and ergo, there would have been no need for them to self-identify ethnically as the East by the early 7th century and even before was fully Hellenized homogenous unit as far as culture and language go, and thats EXACTLY were the synonym with Roman = Greek comes from, the fact that the 'Latin' West had been conquered while the 'Greek' East remained Roman.

Or, to carry the comparison further, the scholars would call it something like "Londinian Empire".

For the rest: Umm, yeah. Sorry, but I'm lost a bit about what you wanted to say... The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek, ethnically and linguistically. That's a fact. The discussion here, however, as far as I understand it, is about the *historical* name, i.e. the terms used during the existence of the Empire. Roydosan deleted statements that the Byzantine Empire was called Graecia, Imperium Graecorum etc. in the West, which was meant as a slur. Roydosan added a statement that Irene conceded the title βασιλευς ("emperor") to the Frankish kings, but reserved των Ρωμαιων for herself, which is entirely understandable, as only the "Roman" (which is completely independent from nationality) emperor was the "real" emperor, and they'd never give up *that* claim.

Both statements are, imo, true. Varana 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting notice: it was by purpose that the last sentence above was not indented, to set it apart from the proposed article text.

Yes Varana, this was the reasons why i reverted Roydosan. The Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire (in ethnicity, language, culture and its view by the outsiders). Irene gave the title βασιλεύς to the Frankish kings, so as not them to use the title των Ρωμαίων, since the last title was associated with: ecclesiastic supremacy, land claims, continuation of administration of the Roman Empire, etc etc. It was a diplomatic game and nothing more. Not to mention that she negotiated a marriage between her son and Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne by his third wife Hildegard of Savoy, something that could imply an attempt to reunite the remnants of the Roman empire... In any case, it would seem rather silly is someone tried to deny the greek character of Byzantium... Regards --Hectorian 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could people please sign there paragraphs, tis rather confusing to find who is talking to whom. As fot Byzantium and its character, this has already been discussed time and again. For the synopsis, and let me boprrow this from an earlier post by Varana I think: The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek, ethnically and linguistically. The key has been enboldened, predominantly does not indicate solely. Akin to the United States being predominatnly anglo-saxon, but calling it English would be serious mis-information. In any event this was not the main point of this discusion was it? I beleive we where talking about the movements of information? Semantics and nationalism seems to be clouding much of this talk page and article. At the onset of any discussion about imperial character, one must remember certain facts, the most important of wich is time. The Byzantine Empire spanned many centuries, in wich time it evolved and mutated, as much on a political and military front as on a cultural and territorial one. Since the fall of this mighty empire, many things have changed and one of them is concepts. The concept of nationalism was not present trough out the medieval world. Empires and kingdoms had more to do with the ruling bodies than the cultures on wich they governed. Peasents would shift from "protector" to "protector" as these battled each other. As can be seen with the back and forth exchanges on the end of the Empire. Warren Treadgold summed it best in his conclusion of A History of the Byzantine State and Society. In the end, to speak of mire once more, I too seem to have lost the original arguement. Yet if I remember correct, my opinion owuld be to keep its myriad of names but to indicate their origins and there temporal values (for exemple to call some one a greek was more of a insult than an ethnic connotation in the Western dark age world). --Dryzen 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• By the standards of a modern nation, the Byzantine empire was an artificial state, largely created by its rulers. The form it took after 285 was the result of an administrative division of the Roman empire made by Diocletian. Constantine I chose the empire's religion and built its future capital. Maneuvering by Leo I and Zeno rescued Byzantium from becoming a plaything of barbarians. Without the determination of Justinian I, the empire would never have expanded to the West. Without the inspired strategy of Heraclius or the prudent management of Constans II, Byzantium would probably have fallen during the seventh century. Its revival from the eighth to the eleventh century was the work of a series of unusually capable rulers, and ceased when that series came to an end. Alexius I rescued the empire from collapse, but it fell to pieces after his dynasty ended. The Byzantium of Michael VIII was a deliberate, if incomplete, restoration of its predecessor. The walls of Constantinople, which had helped save Byzantium several times before, were practically all that preserved the restored empire during its last century.

Byzantium never depended on the perceptions of racial or linguistic unity that define a modern nation-state. While most Byzantine emperors strove to impose religious unity, they never quite succeeded in suppressing heresies, schisms, or religious minorities, and their constant striving to eliminate religious divisions drove their subjects apart almost as much as it brought them together. Most Byzantines, though proud of their empire, assumed that God would care for it without aid from them. They considered it the greatest empire in the world, but this opinion had little to do with how big, strong, or prosperous Byzantium actually was. Most of them considered themselves loyal to the emperor, but such loyalty seldom made them resist someone who overthrew him and took his place. The Byzantines, in short, had nothing much like the modern concept of patriotism.

Yet, as its durability shows, Byzantium's artificiality was as often a strength as a weakness. By and large it overcame the ethnic and linguistic divisions among its subjects. Few of the empire's religious disputes divided its people along ethnic or linguistic lines, and none did so explicitly or completely. Under the pressure of religious idealists, many of them monks, the Byzantine church defended its principles well, and often forced them upon the state. The central role of the state in defining Byzantium led to fairly good government by pre-modern standards. The bureaucracy was distinguished by its education, competence, and professionalism, and the ruling class usually managed to do whatever needed to be done to preserve the state. Regardless of what leading Byzantines might say or write about their powerful emperor on official occasions, they opposed him when necessary, and at some other times as well. The emperor's power never exceeded that of a western monarch like Louis XIV, who was in much less danger of being overthrown.

The differences between Byzantium and the medieval kingdoms that later evolved into nations can easily be exaggerated. In some ways, for example, the history of Byzantium was rather like that of France. Both began as parts of larger empires. Byzantium began as the eastern part of the Roman Empire that was ruled by Diocletian after 285; France began as the western part of the Frankish Empire that was ruled by Charles the Bald after 843. While each of those larger empires was later reunited for a few years, the divisions that created Byzantium and France turned out to be lasting, partly because they corresponded to a previously existing linguistic divide. Diocletian's portion of the Roman Empire was more or less that where Greek, not Latin, was the culturally dominant language, and Charles the Bald's portion of the Frankish Empire was more or less that where the main language was Old French, not Old German. If Byzantium had lasted into modern times with something like the boundaries it possessed between 750 and 1000, it would probably have developed into a predominantly Greek-speaking nation-state, at least as heterogeneous as today's Russia and only a little less so than today's France. As of this writing, France is still some years short of Byzantium’s record of longevity.-A History of the Byzantine State and Society Warren Treadgold (Dryzen)

One of the better articles

I am pretty disenchanted with Wikipedia, and the bigoted, nasty and ignorant people who are determined to push their POV in it. But I would like to say that this is a rare example of a good article. Obviously it could be more complete, but anyone coming to the subject for the first time would come away with a good grasp of the basic facts and structure of Byzantine history. This seems to be mainly down to Roydosan recently, so well done.

I don't notice any "anti-modern-Greek" bias in the article, and some of the comments above (which have much truth in them to some extent) are extreme in neglecting that the whole thing is the Eastern Roman empire, at least in origin and self-identification. The article correctly points out the change to Greek under Heraclius. Before then it is rightly called Roman. By 1453, in a sense, it has indeed shrivelled until it is almost just the kingdom of the Greeks; but that is the end product, not the whole thing. Most people in the West reading this article need to have the Roman nature of it emphasised, rather than the Greek side, in my experience. 81.77.109.121 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So you Western Europeans can appropriate it's History and Culture just like you appropriated the History and Culture of Rome away from the Italians? Not a chance my friend, the Empire is Greek, understand this now because it's the consensus of modern scholarship as well as all contemporary scholarship: THE EMPIRE WAS GREEK, REMAINS GREEK, AND STAYS GREEK. You also undermine the importance of Language as denoting a difference in ethnicity and culture as far as the division between East and West go. The Eastern Roman Empire was a direct continuation of Hellenistic culture with Christianity. And I don't understand why you consider self-identification as 'Roman' as something denoting a Western Latin rather than an Eastern Roman Greek? (Also, aren't you Latins the ones that constantly pooh-pooh our citations of Alexander's self-identifaction as a Greek?) Can you explain this to me? The Empire even before Heraclius was considered Greek, Heraclius is just the de jure point at which it can be considered to be a break from the 'Latin' past, and also because of his emphasis on a Greek national struggle against the Persians during his war, citing earlier conflicts between them as a way of rallying the people. This is OUR Empire, do you think any other race on earth feels the joy when reading about the campaigns of Vasilios, or the pain when we read about the fall of Constantinople? Your enlightenment buddies realised that Britain and Western Europe had no classical heritage, so they appropriated it from Rome, now you realise there is a big gap in your middle-ages history, and you want to appropriate it from Byzantium. Not a chance.

"The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs" - Pope Innocent III

Umm, yeah. Whatever. Sometimes I've got to prepare an equally rambling speech about how all this crap talk of "ethnicity" is ruining serious work at WP. In the meantime, good night. Varana, slightly puzzled 02:33 a.m., 4 September 2006

If you hapen to be anonymous from the previous bellicose satement of a much too similar nature, please sign your statement. Considering the vindictive tone you seem to appreciate I shall ignore this as puerile want of attention.--Dryzen 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Manuel I Komnenos

However, from the moment of Manuel's death on 24 September 1180, the Byzantine Empire began a steep decline that would never be reversed.

Judging from this and several other quotes, somebody has gone a bit overboard in the glorification of Manuel I Komnenos. The turning point in the empire's fortune's was Myriocephalon (1176), a battle which occurred while Manuel was still alive. The article blames the post-Manuel collapse on "disasterous rulers," but Manuel's adventurist foreign policy contributed to the collapse by overstreching the empire's resources. (BTW, do we really need to know that he died on 24 September?) Kauffner 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Manuel was one of the greatest emperors of Byzantium, however, his death is not usually considered to be the turning point for byzantine empire's history. some scholars say this was Myriocephalon, others Matzikert (when the Turks begun conquering Anatolia), and most the 4th crusade (that partitioned and weakened the empire the most). I think this sentence should be removed or rephrased (and, of course, the exact date of his death shall be removed as well). --Hectorian 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you look at the evidence, it is clear that the Byzantine empire did indeed decline steeply after Manuel's death. Furthermore, Manuel was also the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over a state that was the most powerful in Europe and the middle east. His reign was the last in which Byzantium was a world power. After his death, the empire's military, economic, territorial and diplomatic position collapsed. If you read "The Empire of Manuel Komnenos" by Paul Magdaleno, or "Byzantium and the Crusades" by Jonathon Harris, or "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204" by Michael Angold, or "The development of the Komnenian army 1081-1180" by J. Birkenmeier, you will see that Manuel's reign was indeed a turning point for the Empire. Also, looking at our own well researched Featured Article on Manuel I Komnenos himself may be useful if you are looking for more information on the topic.

That said, I don't object to the sentence being re-phrased in some way. But I wouldn't write it off completely, because it contains an important truth. The best thing I think is to make a few suggestions for what to replace it with here, and then if no one objects to implement the new wording. What do you think? Bigdaddy1204 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point Kauffner is making is that Manuel I Komnenos expanded the Byzantine Empire far too much for his successors to mantain. The same problem occurred in many empires, like the Roman Empire with Trajan, the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan, and the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Magnificent. A great warlike expansonist ruler appears and conquers a lot of territory and greatly expands his empire. The great success depends greatly upon the exceptional qualities of the ruler and the weakness of his enemies. The enemy retreats but he also regroups and simpy waits his time, gathering his strength. The new successor who isn't as exceptional as the old ruler doesn't have the necessary resources to oppose the enemy, who comes back with a vengance. In the end the empire sufers great losses.

Everybody blames the sucessor but the cold hard fact is that the old exceptional ruler is the guilty one. Nobody should try to mantain what is impossible to keep and nobody should leave a strong enemy who is simply "pissed off". He should either A) completly destroyed the enemy or B)in the latter part of his rule fortified the border areas and reconsilidated his armies or C)choose a wiser sucessor (the most difficult of all). Of course, as always, nothing is truly as easy as that but if someone looks at Trajan and Hadrian one has to agree that Hadrian was very wise in not mantaining the furthest conquests of Trajan and in regrouping the legions in more defensive positions. One has to wonder what had had happended if Hadrian hadn't been so wise... Received the blame as the successors of Manuel did? Flamarande 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't everybody right here? Manuel's reign certainly was the last in which the Empire was the arguably the strongest Christian power. It also saw overexpansion, which led to serious defeat in Manuel's own lifetime at Myriocephalon. Manuel's failure is thus much greater than the other rulers Flamarande mentions. I'm not sure who the incompetent successors of Trajan were - the Empire was at its height for the largely peaceful reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus. Selim II was certainly a weaker ruler than Suleiman I, but Lepanto is generally no longer seen as a particular turning point, seeing as it had few strategic consequences - the Turks still managed to conquer Cyprus, and the peak of their power in the Mediterranean did not come until their conquest of Crete a century later. There has generally been, I think, a tendency to conflate the personal weaknesses of the sultans who followed Suleiman with institutional weakness of the Empire itself, while the latter, I think, did not really develop until the mid-17th century. Arguably, it is Mehmed IV whose reign fills the same function in Ottoman history that Manuel I's fills in Byzantine. Genghis Khan certainly doesn't fit - there was continued expansion for 50 years after Genghis's death - certainly Batu and Subotai's campaigns in eastern Europe can hardly be seen as part of Mongol decline. Kublai would seem to be the culprit who most resembles Manuel here. There's some other obvious examples, though - Edward I's expansion into Scotland, which only fell apart in the reign of his successor; Henry V's resumption of the Hundred Years War, which led to disaster in his son's reign; and so forth. What we need to do, though, is be sure not to conflate personal weakness of individual monarchs with decline of the state, and vice versa. The Byzantine state was in decline at least from Manzikert onwards, and probably entered an irreversible decline after Myriocephalon. At the same time, Alexius I, John II, and Manuel I were clearly strong rulers, in spite of the latter's ultimate defeat late in his reign. Perhaps a strong successor would have been able to recoup some of Manuel's losses, but the weakness of the position of Isaac II and Alexius III seems much more the result of Manuel's overextension than of their own personal failings. john k 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some very interesting points and comparisons have been made here. I am glad that we are having a constructive discussion here without degenerating into the destructive arguments that seem to be going on under some of the other topics on this talk page. This is good :)

Back on topic - I think it is unreasonable to place the blame for what happened after Manuel's death on him personally. Indeed, if we are going to blame people for what happened afterwards, then we should blame Constantine IX, the empress Zoe, and the many others who mismanaged the empire towards Manzikert, thereby creating the problems that Manuel ultimately never resolved, and which contributed to the collapse after his death in 1180.

I am not saying this is what we should actually do in the article - it's just an illustration to show that the Byzantine empire already had major problems stemming from the Manzikert period, and that these were problems which the Komnenoi emperors, Manuel included, wouldn't have had to deal with in the first place if it hadn't been for the mistakes of earlier emperors.

I think this is largely compatible with what has already been said - the Byzantine empire had some serious problems at this time, which were going to come back as soon as the Komnenoi emperors were gone. But saying that some of their actions may have contributed to the collapse that followed is not the same as saying that they actually caused the collapse in the first place.

What really caused the collapse was a combination of many factors; it is possible to argue that, like Justinian, Manuel's lavish expenditure and grand campaigns overstretched imperial resources, leaving his successors with a difficult situation. While I am sure there is an element of truth in this, a competent emperor such as Basil II or Constantine V would have restored the situation within a few years, while preventing any serious losses.

I believe that the collapse is best explained by a combination of the above, with the fact that Manuel's successors did show a disastrous degree of foolishness and incompetence (read up on how one of the Angeloi threw Frederick Barbarossa's emissaries into prison, for example - the most stupid thing he could have done in the circumstances, as it confirmed Frederick in his suspicions and made him more likely to attack the Byzantines), and, finally, structural weaknesses.

I believe that the disintegration of the military theme system around the time of Manzikert caused a structural weakness that damaged the empire considerably. If you look at the empire before the theme system was devised, it was on the point of collapse. Persians, Slavs, Lombards, Arabs and Avars all rampaged across imperial territory, and emperors were being deposed left right and centre. But once the theme system had been implemented, the empire began to recover; the theme system had offset some of the weaknesses of the imperial system, allowing it to recover and ultimately flourish.

However, after Manzikert the theme system was gone, and so the empire was at the mercy of chance and luck, since its survival was now tied to the quality of the emperor in charge. As luck would have it, the three Komnenos emperors gave the empire stable and competent leadership for a century, allowing it to recover its position in the world. But the underlying problems hadn't gone away. Once Manuel died in 1180, the empire was back where it had been before Heraclius, wollowing in a quagmire of agressive and treacherous enemies, at the mercy of the incompetence of its emperor, with no strong mechanism for its own defense. But this time, no saviour appeared to rescue the empire.

The Komnenos emperors could, I believe, have restored the empire more permanently by restoring the old theme system, which had served it so well for centuries during the long struggle with the Arabs. However, they never did this, and I believe that this made all the difference between their revival being permanent, and the ultimate collapse of their achievement under their successors. Bigdaddy1204 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The depopulation of Anatolia after Manzikert would seem to be the real culprit here. I'll certainly agree that the weaknesses of Manuel I's successors played a role in what happened, but I think the eventual fall of Byzantium was already in the cards from before the Komnenoi took over. john k 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with this - depopulation and the loss of the theme system based in Asia Minor weakened the empire, and the collapse was made much more likely. In the cards, as you nicely put it, is quite a good way of describing it. But the collapse wasn't yet inevitable - as the achievements of the Komnenoi showed. They could have made structural changes that would have ensured the survival of the empire (eg new theme system, based in europe and western asia minor), but they didn't, and the cards eventually came home to roost... Bigdaddy1204 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the text of the article, the point that needs to be made is that the Komnenian golden age, such as it was, ended with Myriocephalon (1176) rather than with Manuel's death (1180). Aside from the battle itself, there were other indicators of decline as well. William of Tyre has a passage I can look up about what a sad state the Byzantine navy was in at the time of Manuel's death compared to 10 years earlier.

As far as the theme system goes, I don't think there was any policy the emperors' could have followed that would have saved the system. With the return to a money-based economy, wealthy landowners were going to start buying out poor ones, so the military could no longer depend on small farmers as its main source of manpower. The defeat at Manzikert (1076) was a symptom of the empire's failure to address this problem and not the beginning of the decline. Classical Rome faced the same problem and the solution was the Marian reforms -- the creation of a salaried, professional legions. Caesar's legions outclassed any Medieval army. The soldiers fought and the farmers farmed. Isn't that the logical way to organize a sophisticated society? Kauffner 09:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good points made here. Classical Rome is a fascinating analogy, and one which I had not considered before. Given what you have said, perhaps I should be arguing that the Komnenoi should have restored not the theme system, but the professional army of Rome instead. An intreaguing possibility!

Be that as it may, however, I wouldn't fall into the trap of calling Myriokephalon a disaster on the scale of Manzikert. I think to say that the golden age came to an end at Myriokephalon is to overrate the significance of the battle to the empire. I have read accounts in more general history books, which claim that the entire imperial army was massacred in an apocalyptic bloodbath of a battle which saw the end of Byzantine power. In reality, however, the battle had little impact from a military standpoint. The best modern studies of the battle I have read are in John Haldon's "The Byzantine Wars", and J. Birkenmeier's "the development of the Komnenian army 1081-1180". Detailed analysis reveals that casualties were not heavy, except among the auxiliaries from Antioch on the right wing. The main body of the army survived the battle intact, as well as the vanguard, which had reached the far side of the pass and was unscathed. The army went on to win a significant victory over the Turks in the following year (1177). Other than a psychological humiliation to the emperor's reputation, almost nothing had been lost, from a military point of view. The frontier remained static.

However, the campaign had certainly been expensive, and no doubt the imperial treasury was hurt by the loss of the seige train and treasure at the battle. This most likely was a contributor to the monetary difficulties Manuel's successors faced. Ultimately, as so often in history, Myriokephalon only looks like the end of the Byzantine golden age when you look at it with the benefit of hindsight. This is reinforced by the dramatic and well publicised nature of the battle, which lends itself all too easily to exaggeration. We know that the Byzantines collapsed in the years after Manuel. It is convenient to use a defeat in battle as a marker for the collapse of the empire, especially since the events are not widely separated in time. But the historical evidence does not allow us to make such a smooth conclusion.

As for how we should rework the section of text in question, I think we need something that explains that the article is now going on to discuss a new topic: the decline of the Byzantine empire. We need a sentence that wraps up the Komnenian period, indicates that the Komnenian period of Byzantine history has come to an end, and that we are entering the decline and fall stage of the empire's history. We need something that explains that Manuel was the last emperor to rule over an empire that was a great world power. Suggestions? Bigdaddy1204 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thematic map based on Treadgold's Byzantium and Its Armies, 284-1081, of the Iberian Themes.

Just to come back on this discusion, making an analogy with the Roman empire on can find new perspectives. The first, the professional army that was earlier alluded to, did exist and even participated prior to Manzkiert in the form of mercenaries. The sole difrence in this incarnation was that this professional force held its loyalty only to the coins the Emperors gave it, rather than coin and holding some ideal like the early Imperial Legions. This also brings in the second thought, one must also remember that it was the professional (although degrated in quality) armies that fell before the ennemies of the 6th and 7th centuries. And this as we look on the long history of Rome, seems to present a patern, where as time flows so too does the military system. Changing from citizen army to professional army to mercenary army back to soldier-tenants to Professional to mercenary to pronoia... Finaly looking for a catalyst to the Byzantine troubles one can also allot the blame to Constantine IX and his economic "solutions" (generous tax immunities to major landowners and the church, disbanding of the veteran Iberian (eastern most territories of the empire, see image) Army&Themes).--Dryzen 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The extensive use of mercenaries at Manzikert suggests that the empire had the money for professional soldiers, but somehow not the will to recreate an army of its own. There were only 5,000 regular army Byzantine soldiers at Manzikert (out of 40,000). Mercenary cavalry found it too easy to take the money and run away when the heavy fighting started.

The 6th and 7th centuries were the low point of the Dark Ages. Agriculture was at the subsistance level and the money economy had collapsed. Thus there no way to raise the taxes needed for an adequate professional army at that time. By 1000, the climate had warmed and there was an agricultural surplus. Not as much manpower was needed for farming, so farms were consolodated and small landowners bought out. The problem certainly pre-dates Constantine IX (r 1042-55). Basil II (r. 976–1025) was able to continue the theme system only by rigorous enforcement and arbitrary confiscation. This meant keeping excess manpower down on the farm just a create pool from which part-time soldiers can be recruited. I can't see this policy as a long term solution to the problem (and indeed it wasn't).Kauffner 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

REFERENCES

I am not perfectlyhappy with the references given for Byzantine History.

The Dr. David Turner reference [Dr. is NOT used in references & is a dead giveaway for self-promotion] links to a webpage with some sort of essay with no citations. I believe Wikipedia does not accept "original" research.

Gibbon is a lovely read, but outdated as a reference. Norwich is unacceptable as a reference: he worked from secondary sources & went purely for sensational stories. Runciman is mostly outdated.

References I would like to see included are:

Fowden, Darth. Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of monotheism in late antiquity. Princeton, 1993. Kazhdan, A. P. & Ann Wharton Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Berkeley, 1985. Whittow, Mark. The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025. Berkeley, 1996.

The link to the Dumbarton Oaks Economic History of Byzantium is good & should be played up more prominently, especially as it is a free source. The link goes to the book for sale, but this link http://doaks.org/EHB.html goes directly to the downloadable book.

Nauplion 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Also:

The references should be alphabetized, and should follow a uniform presentation. Is there any objection to my doing this?

Nauplion 01:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

References are in chronological (in the article) order and the numbers refert to the citation numbers found within the artivcle. Alphabetization would disrupt this order. In Bibliography on the other hand, alphabetization is more than welcomed. As for the references themsleves I'll leave that ot the main writers of the article.--Dryzen 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong term. My comments were of course about bibliography. Nauplion 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to see this hit Featured Article Review, but the lack of inline citations worries me. If you guys are working on references, try to integrate some. --Zeality 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dr. David Turner reference [Dr. is NOT used in references & is a dead giveaway for self-promotion] links to a webpage with some sort of essay with no citations. I believe Wikipedia does not accept "original" research.

Gibbon is a lovely read, but outdated as a reference. Norwich is unacceptable as a reference: he worked from secondary sources & went purely for sensational stories. Runciman is mostly outdated.

WTF??? Who are you to decide? Roydosan 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you doubt? Gibbon is outdated; Runciman maybe not as old, but not exactly recent scholarship either; Norwich is pop. All of them would be (and are) used, but replaced by newer scholarship if available. Varana 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The books I used

These are the books I used:

• Angold, Michael (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204. Longman. ISBN 0-582-29468-1.
• Haldon, John (2002). Byzantium - A History. Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-2343-6.
• Harris, Jonathan (2003). Byzantium and the Crusades. Hambledon and London. ISBN 1-85285-298-4.
• Alan Harvey, "Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire, 900-1200"
• John Haldon, "The Byzantine Wars"
• J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army 1081-1180
• Magdalino, Paul, "The empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180"
• Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-025960-0.

I would like to add inline citations as well; however constraints of time make this difficult. The most I have time for immediately is to place my seven books at the top of the bibliography list, draw attention to them here, and explain that these are the books that I used when I wrote the following sections:

• 8 Crisis and fragmentation
• 9 Komnenoi and the crusaders
• 9.1 Alexios I Komnenos
• 9.2 First Crusade
• 9.3 Slow recovery
• 9.4 John's restoration of the empire
• 9.5 Manuel I Komnenos
• 10 The Komnenian army
• 11 Twelfth century 'Renaissance'
• 11.1 Economic expansion
• 11.2 Artistic revival
• 12 Decline and disintegration
• 12.1 Death of Manuel Komnenos
• 12.2 Collapse under the Angeloi
• 12.3 The Fourth Crusade
• 13 Analysis of the collapse
• 13.1 The arrival of the Seljuks
• 13.2 The structure of the military
• 13.3 Conclusion

as well as parts of 7 - "Golden age", 14 - The fall of the Byzantine Empire, amd 14.1 - Aftermath.

Hopefully by pointing out the sections I wrote and the books I used to write them, this will be of some help. Bigdaddy1204 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Moirae (military)

Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone minds if I delete or change this page to Meros?--Dryzen 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Crusade

My recent edits to this section were reverted. However, this has not changed the fact that the original text is poorly written and is not formal enough. It is simply not good enough to leave it as it is. It must be re-written. Examples:

"the leaders of the Crusade ran in to trouble"

too colloquial;

"after some time spent arguing over what to do next"

same;

"The Crusaders ransacked the wealth of a millennium, stretching back to the days of the Roman Empire."

bad sentence structure; and so on. This section lets the rest of the article down. It is glaringly inferior to the rest of the text. You seem to be missing the point that I'm not just adding more details to this article, but I am re-writing it in a more appropriate style. But every time you revert my edits, you are removing all these improvements to the style of the section and putting it back to its unsatisfactory condition.

I don't want an edit war over this, but I'm not going to leave the section alone; it simply isn't good enough as it is.

Now, what I suggest is that I set down the text as I want it to be here, and then you suggest changes and amendments here, and then when we have reached a version we can agree on, we add it to the article. So, here it is:

"The Fourth Crusade Main article: Fourth Crusade The Fourth Crusade was the single most catastrophic event in the history of the Byzantine empire. Considered by many to be the low point of the Crusading era, the outcome of the Fourth Crusade was also a supreme irony. The Crusades had originated in a call for aid by the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who had envisaged the use of western soldiers in the defense of the empire. Yet in 1204, the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked the Byzantine capital at Constantinople and dismantled the Byzantine empire.

Although the stated intent of the crusade was to conquer Egypt, the leaders of the Crusade were placed in an extremely difficult position when they found that considerably fewer men had responded to the call for a crusade than had been expected. As a result, they could not afford to pay for the huge Venetian fleet which they had hired to take them to Egypt. The Venetians would not let the crusaders leave without paying the full amount agreed to, originally 85,000 silver marks. The crusaders could only pay some 51,000. After a period of indecision and argument between the Crusade leaders and the increasingly impatient Venetians, the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo made a controversial new proposal - the crusaders could pay their debts by attacking the port of Zara in Dalmatia (essentially an independent community which recognized King Emeric of Hungary as a protector, and which was previously ruled by Venice).

The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. Both the Venetians and the crusaders were immediately excommunicated for this by Pope Innocent III.

In 1202, the Byzantine prince Alexius Angelus, the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelus, offered to reunite the Byzantine church with Rome, pay the crusaders an enormous sum, and join the crusade to Egypt with a large army if the crusaders would sail to Constantinople and topple the reigning emperor. The crusaders accepted; their fleet arrived at Constantinople in late June, 1203.

The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. The citizens of Constantinople turned against emperor Alexius III, who then fled. Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.

Alexius IV realised that his promises were hard to keep, as Alexius III had managed to take a large amount of money with him, and the empire was short on funds. In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked from the crusaders to renew their contract for another six months (until April 1204). Opposition to Alexius IV grew, and one of his courtiers, Alexius Ducas (nicknamed 'Murtzuphlos' because of his thick eyebrows), soon overthrew him and had him strangled to death. Alexius Ducas took the throne himself as Alexius V; Isaac died soon afterwards, probably naturally.

The Catholic clergy meanwhile accused the Byzantines of being traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "the Greeks were worse than the Jews", and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action. Although Innocent III had warned them not to attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared to assault the Byzantine capital.

Eventually, the crusaders took the city on the 13th of April. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were stolen or destroyed. Among the loot were four bronze horses from the Hippodrome. These were taken to Venice, where they remain to this day. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; according to Choniates a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne. When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them, saying "You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".

According to a prearranged treaty, the empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established over the ruins of the Byzantine empire. Byzantine power was permanently weakened. After an initial rise of the power of Bulgaria in the first half of the 13th century, the Serbian Kingdom under the Nemanjic dynasty grew stronger and, with the weakening of Byzantium, formed a Serbian Empire in 1346."

Bigdaddy1204 07:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment or objection to the incorporation of the above text, I have made the necessary changes. Bigdaddy1204 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

New map requested

It would be useful to have a map showing the partition of the empire's territories in 1204. Any help with this would be much appreciated. Bigdaddy1204 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a rough one at Commons, also used in Latin Empire and a number of other 1204-related articles; another one here. If you want another one, I think I could help out; say what you want on the map. :) Varana 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I am grateful for such a helpful response. About the maps you have cited - I like the second one (the first one I think is a bit rough, as you said) but I am especially interested in a new map if possible. Maybe taking the area of the lands shown in the first map, but with the division of territory from the second map? I'd like to see for example which lands were given to Venice, and which lands were never occupied by the crusaders (eg Nicaea). Could it be done? Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Map Tell me what you think and how it could be improved. :) Varana 09:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I am impressed! This map is just what I need. I don't think I need to suggest any improvements - it's great as it is. Good job! If only everyone on wikipedia were as helpful as you! Many thanks, Bigdaddy1204 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive. What did you use to draw over the base geography? Lots of information, I hope this map is posted on the Latin Empire article, wich could also use sectiosn for all the duchies, etc, repressented.--Dryzen 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've been so immodest to add the map to Latin Empire myself. The vassals have all their own articles, which are linked from somewhere there; although I agree that the article could be improved.

The map is made in Paint Shop Pro, with a layer with reduced visibility for the coloured areas. Varana 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The defeat of Roydosan

Well done my fellow Greeks, we have defeated Roydosan and now he runs like cattle. HEIL!