Talk:Byzantine Empire

Changing the Name to Eastern Roman Empire using historical precedents.

I'm want it to change to Eastern Roman Empire because the term 'Byzantine' did not come into popular use until after its fall. Hieronymus Wolf was a German historian who wrote a book in the 16th Century referring to the Romans as Byzantines and a century later, the King of France began an assembly of different texts from eastern Roman history, which built on top of Wolf's work. So that's why I believe it should be changed back to Eastern Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Historybufffanatic2005: 1) "Eastern Roman Empire" is just as much an invented name as "Byzantine Empire" is; to the Byzantines the empire was just the "Roman Empire". The idea of formally divided Western and Eastern Roman Empires is historiographical and the Romans themselves did not see it that way - calling it the "Eastern Roman Empire" undermines it as the true Roman Empire in much the same way as calling it the "Byzantine Empire" since it puts on a qualifier suggesting that it is not "as Roman" as the empire that came before it.

2) Wikipedia does not operate on absolute truth but on what reliable sources say. Everyone knows that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire and if they don't, it is immediately made clear with the very first line of the article ("was the continuation of the Roman Empire..."). Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to it as the Byzantine Empire, far more often than they call it the Eastern Roman Empire, so that is what Wikipedia does as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I for ERE, but I would say that the article lead does allready a good job of clarifying that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire. But it seems that editors still get triggered by the opening sentance. I get it its probably impossible to do what the lead as a whole allready does in the first sentance. I also get the arguments that Eastern Roman Empire is eaqually anachronistic, even though I would find it more descriptive, which probably is why so many people want to put it allread at the beginning in the foreground. I would argue that the issue cant be solved here on Wikipedia. It needs to be solved by historians. There has been the argument that Eastern Roman Empire is more often used in the literature, I want to add my quick result from Jstor an academic paper platform: Byzantine has more results. Scholars seem to use Byzantine Empire more often, and as long as that is the case the article has to stay as it is. Maybe the literature will change. PS: The use of Eastern Roman Empire might be also a case ofthe many non-native speaker on the english Wikipedia. Being my self a german native speaker, I must say I am also more used to Eastern Roman Empire (ERE). PPS: while I am a proponent of puting ERE in the foreground, I also have to add that even the academic field studying the ERE is called Byzantine studies. PPPS: I keep seeing mostly the same editors defending the established text. I recommend you to not having to defend the text all the time, that you add an inline note! Nsae Comp (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The term "Byzantine Empire" is a modern convention and was not used by its contemporaries. The populace referred to themselves as Romans. The empire was referred to as the "Roman Empire" following the demise of the Western Roman Empire. Not enough emphasis has been given to these points in the article. 46.31.112.214 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"the adoption of Greek as the sole official language by Heraclius in the 7th century."

This is a claim that appears a couple of times in the article, which goes completely unsourced. Does anyone know where this idea comes from? I am unable to find anything of the sort in any contemporary sources, if there was any such edict or law that changed the language of the empire, you'd think it would be easy to find a reference.

The article on Heraclius specifically cites a source (The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology), which makes the same statement but has no footnote.

What does "Official language" even mean in this context? The language of law? We don't have any laws from the 7th Century, and Justinian's laws were in both Latin and Greek. Maybe the language on coins? Well, we keep seeing Latin phrases and script on coins well into the 7th and [8th] Century, so that can't be it.

The only thing I can find to support this is that Heraclius did indeed change his primary title from Augustus to Basileus (although Augustus was still used, and never fully abandoned). But this is a very different claim from "Heraclius made Greek the sole language".

I'd like to see if anyone can find some material (ideally primary sources) to support this claim, and if it can't be found this claim should be revised. --Marvelfannumber1 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, probably true but also assumed as that date due to imperial changes and the related territory loss of the Latin speaking West and Semetic East. Sources at the time, especially Greek ones, are apparently scant. Theophanes the confessor I believe is where we get most of our knowledge of Heraclius' reign (there is an analysis into his sources that I've yet to read fully that may will help identify primary sources). According to a modern scholar Dr Kaegi, a biography of Heraclius has never been written in English which might explain the challenge with this as a task.. Elias (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That Heraclius "changed the language" to Greek is a misconception, yes, that should be rooted out of these articles. Greek was already the official language (alongside Latin) and nothing Heraclius did to my knowledge removed the status of Latin. Starting to issue documents in Greek (which many emperors had done before) and assuming the title Basileus (already used colloquially for the emperors) does not really equate to adopting Greek as the sole official language. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the citation I found on Languages of the Roman Empire you are correct -- Greek was spoken even with Augustus unofficially and by the reign of Tiberius efforts were made to reinstate Latin as the conquests of Greek cities had increased its influence on Rome (I presume from what was slaves educating the elites to now the general population already speaking it). Rochette references Juvenal who complained Rome was becoming a Greek city circa 118 CE . He claims the tension existed because Latin was the language of conquest, prestige and the criteria of Romanitas. Rochette claims despite Roman conquests, Greek remained the official administrative language in the East up until Diocletian. Rochette references evidence that Greek was official state language as early as 397 when judges could sentence in Greek and Latin but that Latin was used at every one of the four levels distinguished in (mostly government) communications up to 439 in the West (but not the necessarily the East). He claims Justinian was the last emperor to try to impose Latin and return to bilateral monolingulism that was characteristic of the Republic and the Principate but unlike then by virtue of Constantinople being the new capital made Greek definitively official, as by then Latin was no longer understood and was a dead language.

Here's a thought now that I've looked into this: given language is used to distinguish the "Roman Empire" with the 15th century historiographic term "Byzantine Empire", it might be worth exploring this further if Wikipedia wishes to continue to propagate the scholars who claim the Byzantine Empire was a different empire. Elias (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure what more would need to be said in this article about this, the article is already massive. Language is not the only aspect used to distinguish "Byzantine" and Ancient Roman, and Wikipedia does not propagate the idea that the Byzantine Empire was a different empire - the first line explicitly says "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a great opening line. But if the terms remain, which I understand we need to leave it to the scholars to sort that out, the historiography needs to be called out otherwise a reader who does not know anything about the subject would assume that was the actual name. Elias (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Stating official name of the aforementioned country

I propose you to change introduction sentence of this article, stating that it was officially callled Roman Empire.

This is a printworthy name since official names of countries was mentioned in other articles all the time.

Would you agree on doing this like I did? Here it is: [1] Eşcinellik insan fıtratına ters (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the issue is already explained at length in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I would like to suggest we start the article with “In modern historiography” similar to how the page for ancient rome does.

Even though the second paragraph does a great job explaining why the term Byzantine is used, the historiographic convention should be called out in the first sentence. The first sentence is excellently written otherwise but because this is not called out, is misleading -- someone who would not know anything about the subject can easily think this was the name of what it was called and not one invented by historians, implying it was a different thing all together which is at the heart of the recurring disputes on this talk page.

The proposed revisions would look like this, with emphasis on the change:

In modern historiography the Byzantine Empire, also called the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, refers to the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.

(For comparison, this is how it is currently written where you can see how big a difference it makes: The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. )

Elias (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Still a use–mention mismatch, and still useless pedantry, so in a word, no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

New lede proposal

I propose to change the first two paragraphs to this:

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the medieval Roman Empire (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, romanized: Basileía Rhōmaíōn) as it continued in its eastern provinces, when its capital city was Constantinople. It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe.

"Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire or Romania (Medieval Greek: Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as Romans (Medieval Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi) – a term which Greeks continued to use for themselves into Ottoman times. Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, some modern historians distinguish Byzantium from its earlier incarnation because it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

These are some of the main objections I've seen in the Talk page for years:

1. @Fut.Perf usually has issues with the use-mention mismatch, and this wording avoids that completely.

2. @Ichthyovenator and @Johnbod usually have issues with WP:COMMONNAME, and this doesn't breach that. The Byzantine Empire is still the name being used.

3. @Ichthyovenator believes that the term Byzantine is useful, and certainly still widely used. This doesn't challenge that at all.

There are two major changes I'd be proposing. The first was changing "continuation" to "was". I think continuation is a perfectly good term, but I also think calling something what it is is stronger, and more honest. We don't call the Dominate a continuation of the Roman Empire, and we don't call post-Marian Rome continuation of the Roman Republic. We are forced by convention to have different articles of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, so I think being crystal clear that this is just the Roman Empire going through the Middle Ages is worth emphasising.

The other component to the change is adding the endonym to the beginning. The objection to this change was that Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων wasn't a directly translation of the English term "Byzantine Empire". But I would point out that the articles on the Achaemenid Empire and the Neo-Assyrian Empire have these endonyms, even if they're not direct translations of the term. In any case, I've copied the format of the Sasanian Empire where the endonym is placed after the real term, not the main one.

I don't expect to get immediate consensus (or maybe, no consensus at all), but I please ask that you read this in good faith. I think it's a good balance between current academia (where the term Byzantine is still used, but with a myriad of caveats and apologies, and the full understanding that this is simply the medieval Roman Empire) and the fact that Byzantine is still the most used term in the field. 132.181.223.118 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Medieval Roman Empire is what I've seen a community of people on the internet have agreed to as a solution to replace the term Byzantine Empire (manifesto here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/RomeNotByzantium/about). Historians agree the term Byzantine is problematic but I've never come across anything with historians saying this is the preferred new term even though the way you wrote it as different links (medieval and Roman Empire) is accurate and does not need a source to support it.

Personally, I think this is a positive edit. As subtle as it is, reduces the confusion. Elias (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, still doesn't work grammatically. You now have the "its" of "in its eastern provinces" grammatically referring back directly to "Byzantine Empire", the subject of the sentence. So you're saying the Byzantine Empire existed only in its own "eastern provinces"? (Huh, then what were the Byzantine Empire's western provinces, and how could it possibly "not exist" in those?) Same for the "its" of "its capital" – so you're saying there was a time when the capital of the Byzantine Empire was at Constantinople? (Really? And where, if you please, was the Byzantine Empire's capital at other times when it was not there?) – Like it or not, if we're going to explain the geographical extent of the Byzantine Empire and the location of its capital by way of an implicit comparison with the territory and capital of earlier Rome, then there's no way around mentioning Byzantium and Ancient Rome as two distinct referents, at least grammatically. Your proposed lead sentence doesn't do that, so it muddles things.

Needless to say, Wikipedia doesn't care about what some "community of people on the internet" think and about their "manifestos". And it's simply not true that modern historiography uses the term "Byzantine" only "with a myriad of caveats and apologies" or that historians agree it's "problematic". They don't. Experts on Byzantium continue to use the term as a matter of course.

Remind me again, what problem was this new proposal supposed to solve? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In which case, the simplest solution would be: "The Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, romanized: Basileía Rhōmaíōn)". Then it's geography and capital and be defined after. I recognise it's a short statement, but here's the first sentence for the Roman Empire article: "The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum [ɪmˈpɛri.ũː roːˈmaːnũː]; Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, translit. Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn) was the post-Republican period of ancient Rome". And that's it, no further elaboration needed. Obviously the rest of the paragraph would have to be worked on, but would you have objections to that on principle?

What the new proposal is meant to solve is this: we're giving this article special treatment that it doesn't deserve. If we must use an incorrect name, then let us be as crystal clear about what it is immediately. The Roman Dominate isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire; it is the Roman Empire. Post-Marian Rome isn't a continuation of the Roman Republic; it is the Roman Republic. The Byzantine Empire isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire; it's just simply the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Why are we overcomplicating it?

In addition to the medievalist article @Elias shared, I would link Is It Time to De-Colonize the Terms "Byzantine" and "Byzantium"?, where Elizabeth Bolman (Case Western Reserve University), Anthony Kaldellis (Ohio State University), Leonora Neville (University of Wisconsin) and Alexander Tudorie (St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) all argue that the term "Byzantium" should be abandoned, and some ways of doing it. On the subject of Kaldellis, here's a short excerpt from the Preface of Romanland: "We have to come to terms with the fact that the Byzantines were what they claimed to be, Romans [...] There is now simply no theoretical justification left for outright denying the ethnicity of a society and imposing upon it an incoherent medley of indented alternatives to accompany the invented label ("Byzantium") that we have also foisted upon it". This is not original research or pedantry; this is trying to get this article into line with what the experts on the field are saying and publishing.

I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing to change the name of the empire, per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm arguing that, given that we have to use the name, we should do a better job of representing current research. 125.239.16.24 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's true and a good point: Byzantine Italy was until the 11th century. A solid reason why Eastern Roman Empire is also a confusing term.

I'm just voicing support on the proposal but not willing to debate this as we will go in circles. For an explanation of the politics of the term Byzantine and how there is change happening, I suggest you and anyone else interested in the topic get some popcorn and listen to Leonora Neville and Anthony Kaldellis on a great podcast that covers why Byzantine is being pushed by some people (and will give you an entire new perspective on the renaissance). https://byzantiumandfriends.podbean.com/e/byzantine-gender-with-leonora-neville/. https://www.medievalists.net/2021/02/abandon-rubric-byzantium-leonora-neville/ Elias (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I've proposed a new article that details the foreign relations of the Byzantine empire: Draft:Foreign_relations_of_the_Byzantine_Empire

My motivation is to try to cut the size of several articles, primarily Greece-Turkey relations but also because in my research of the Göktürks, I found a lot of conflicting information on Wikipedia that discussed the same events.

Although there is a section on Byzantine diplomacy and the history details events, this could be a place for a more holistic and detailed view of how relations evolved. For example, the Göktürks thought the Byzantines were treacherous, but at the same time as they were negotiating, Justin was incapacitated and his regents were dealing with several other crisis's. Pulling this together on one article will give a whole different perspective to why events transpired the way they did.

I thought I would share this in case any one else thinks there is value to a page like this. Elias (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The gif should be slowed down, right?

The newly added gif is great but it's lightning fast- it's so fast that it basically doesn't even provide any information. Could we slow that down a tad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8700:DA00:A8A8:FC9A:74F5:FE6D (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice it was added by @NeimWiki Elias (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, slides last 70/100 of a second now, the thumbnail should update soon too, usually it takes wikipedia a bit to update them. NeimWiki (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@NeimWiki: I really like the gif, but I still think it's way too fast. I would suggest slowing it down to be similar to this gif. Additionally, I suggest adding a key so people know what all the various colors stand for. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The B-word, suppression of education and knowledge

Why do the people in charge of Wikipedia allow it to be, in terms of the word, a haven of the Byzantine Far-Right, people absolutely obsessed with calling the Roman Empire a name it never was? I obviously have not surveyed millions of people, but it seems to the everyday person that the Roman Empire ended 'around the 400s', or if they have a bit more knowledge, 'Romulus Augustus was the last emperor'. All these people are being denied the chance to gain the education that the empire just carried on until 1453 in Constantinople and 1461 in Trebizond. (Also, if the B-Word did genuinely apply to the Roman Empire, that would include Trebizond). I dislike another denier term "the continuation of the Roman Empire" as if it had ended then someone else started it up again, no, it just "was", until 1453. People can research the B-Word, it came from westerners' anti-eastern racism, cultural appropriation and indentity theft and denial against the east. To a person who has studied the original use of the word, it is an offensive word, as well as suppressing knowledge and being just incorrect. I think the B-Word should be banned on Wikipedia in context of using it for the Roman Empire, with the exception of specific truthful usage referring to the city of Byzantium, pre-Constantinople. Because people used a bad word in the past, is not a valid reason for continuing to use a bad word - just use the correct word! Middle More Rider (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree but the consensus of scholars is still not there yet. That's why. Entrenched interests with academic chairs of Byzantine studies, the Christian Orthodox Church, and Greek nationalists prefer to keep it as Byzantine. Elias (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but truth should be above everything, anyone who can help put things right should be be doing so. On Hellenic people using the B-Word, that's another sad situation from the western prejudice, the 'great powers' saying they would only give military and political help to a new state of the Roman people, free of Turk occupation, if they identified themselves as a Hellenic nation, there is that famous situation in 1912 when the 'Hellenic' Navy freed Lemnos from Turk occupation and the islanders were still calling themselves Roman.

The historic truth should be the standard for a text book, physical or online.

My own situation, as a young teenager I loved reading about the ancient Roman Empire but in school we were taught that it ended in the 400s, then there was nothing, we never knew there was anything else to learn about, and this was before the internet. About 15 years later, 15 missed years of education, I discovered by chance at the back of a Roman coin book, that there was a later 'b.......e empire'.

I don't think that is a good enough situation for education.

Middle More Rider (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's complicated. It's a change in narrative for a lot of things. For example, there's a view that the West's origin of how it emerged from the dark ages is also rooted in demonising the Roman Empire that it also claims to be a successor to. The change is happening as we speak (ie, the move away from the European medieval era to global post-classical era) but it's still in progress. Since the 16th century and very relevant today, Russia's estranged relationship with the West is also politics driving this.

What I mean by this is Anthony Kaldellis's claim that Byzantine studies was created around the time of the Crimea war to replace the term "Empire of the Greeks" (which Charlamagne first coined in 800 CE) to prevent claims by Russia on unifying the Orthodox nations.

The issue is this debate cannot be won based on unpublished opinions like our own. To win this, you need to play Wikipedia's rules: find sources that support this change. Anthony Kaldellis latest work (which I refer above, and added in the nomenclature section of the article this year) I think has dropped an atomic bomb on Byzantine studies that I'm sure its still playing out and in the background of shrinking university budgets consolidating departments. It's only a matter of time, not if but when. Elias (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never read any of his books, you refer to Romanland? I checked on Google, it looks like a good book, thanks for mentioning him.

Middle More Rider (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Check Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 349–367. ISBN 9780884024842. Elias (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I found that online and also downloaded it.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We must call it whatever the scholarly consensus calls it. Paul August ☎ 01:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I watched an Orthodox webinar, with modern historians discussing this subject on YouTube this morning, it seems, as mentioned, historians are starting to side with the truth.

Does Wikipedia really want to be stuck in a stagnant lie while everybody else does what's right? And the origin of the ancient sources, mostly from when the Roman Empire existed, they all called the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the byzantine term is offensive (or the B-word if you prefer), however we should all know that it's a modern term and was not in official use during the empire's existence. The article should remain titled like that to let readers have an easier time finding the right article. Couldn't say the same about the conventional long name in the infobox, though. Suasufzeb (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine empire and Greece

Byzantine empire was Greeκ empire.The Greek language and culture dominates and the most citizens have Greek origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.251.255 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire that became Greek speaking only and was Christian. Yes, modern Greeks derive their heritage from the Byzantine Empire but that does not make it a Greek empire. The term Greek was used to distance "Greeks" from their Roman heritage, by the father of western Europe Charlemagne and later by Adamantios Korais, which he did so as to get western European support and to break free from the control of the church that was dominated by the Turks. Elias (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Change of conventional long name in infobox

As the conventional long name in the infobox is usually used to state the formal and official name in the infobox, and the empire was called traditionally the "Roman Empire", we should change the conventional long name from "Byzantine Empire" to "Roman Empire". Suasufzeb (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this would just cause confusion. The infobox should stick to the current title and name, as supported by the overwhelming bulk of the content and sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think supressing the truth causes the most confusion, and it's so unfair and wrong for people starting out learning about the Roman Empire to have false knowledge inflicted upon them. And the inaccuracies, like "the fall of the Western Roman Empire" there was no such thing, territory was lost in the western region, there was only one Roman Empire. And "Preceded by Roman Empire" either a deliberate lie or written without the knowledge that it is untrue, the Roman Empire lasted from Augustus to Constantine XI, and in Trebizond until 1461, the rulers at Constantinople were also sovereigns, by their own law, over Trebizond, which they allowed the Komnenos family (and a few others) to rule autominously.

And the calling of Constantinople as 'byzantium', the Roman capital, Constantinople was (I don't know the exact precise amount) maybe 15 times bigger than the old city of Byzantium, so most of the land mass of Constantinople had never been Byzantium ever.

Middle More Rider (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't really cause confusion as it has been explained in the lead, Also, even if the term was in usage during the times of the empire (it wasn't), what matters about the conventional long name is that it marks official or formal usage for the state, not what it's referred to unofficially. Suasufzeb (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

1204 vs Restored Empire

The page describes the Empire as a "continuation of the Roman Empire", which only works until 1204. So why is the Empire of Nicea with captured Constaninople treated as the legit succesor of rome despite 2 generations between 1204 and 1261 removing any kind of continuity it had with the original Empire? 2003:C0:F73D:9400:F43C:336B:C006:F9D8 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It was the same Roman Empire from Augustus to Constantine XI, over time they gained territory, lost some, regained some etc. I know the Roman Empire was never called 'byzantine empire', can't imagine it was called 'nicaean empire' ever at the time, just still the Roman Empire, at the time they may have eventually thought they'd never get Constantinople back, so there would be even more of an Anatolian Greekness to the Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the noble families and people of Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond were the exact same as for the pre-1204 empire. The Nicene emperors also had the continued approval and blessing of the ecumenical patriarchs. Rheskouporis (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

In addition to the previous notice from 21 November 2020, it seems that many maps aren't sourced:

• File:ByzantineEmpire867AD4-en.svg
• File:Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg
• File:Byzantium-Angeloi.JPG
• File:LatinEmpire2.png
• File:1263 Mediterranean Sea.svg
• File:Greek Asia Minor dialects.png
• File:Justinian555AD.png
• File:4KBYZ.gif
• File:Byzantine Empire animated.gif (based on unsourced maps)
• File:Roman Republic.gif
• File:Tetrarchy map3.jpg (also, issue with colors: "The districts of Maximian and Galerius are impossible to tell apart in the legend; it is also impossible to relate the legend entries for the districts of Maximian, Galerius, and Diocletian to their respective territories in the map.")

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)