Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed


This article hasn't quite started yet but is part of the plan to decentralize the Byzantine Empire into smaller articles, like Themata, if you will.Tourskin 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Tourskin! You have made a very good start on this new article. Between this article, and Byzantium under the Komnenoi, we have already gone a long way towards fixing the coverage of the later empire at wikipedia, and making up for the weakness of the Byzantine Empire article itself. Good work! Bigdaddy1204 11:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you! Your own edits deserve greater applause - you virtually finished the Komnenoi dynasty! Well anyways we still have a few more to go!Tourskin 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Images, References[edit]

I've finished the bare bones of this article and added a little meat too. Now I need to plug in the references (in wiki form, don't no one worry!) and add a few fancy images here and there and it should be ready to be linked from Byzantine Empire.

By the way, I will also add Palaiologan art here as a section at the end. Soon.Tourskin 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Was the empire really in a position to survive in 1350? I thought that, after c.1328, the empire was doomed, because it had lost all of Asia to the Turks and nearly all of the Balkans to the Serbs and Bulgarians. There wasn't enough territory or manpower left to form the basis of a viable state, let alone defend itself from the attacks of its neighbours. What say you? Bigdaddy1204 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats a fair point sorry I thought the map was different. In 1328 it was still good. In 1350 it was in the middle of its worst period, so its arguable whether or not it could have survived if the government stopped tearing itself apart with civil war and concentrated on defending itself. If Byzantium ever had the worst year it would be 1354 when the Turks crossed over and sealed the fate of the Byzantines. The thing is when it had acquired Epirus, its territorial extent looks similar to that in 1091 and we know that in 1091 they were able to recover the situation. I admit that on second glance it looks in a bad shape. Whether or not it is doomed is difficult to say but in 1350 it is probably more doomed than not. Also, I know that in 1091, they had Bulgaria but here they didn't! And here in 1350 they didn't have any Latin help!! Tourskin 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Well, the first thing I see is a big {{wikify}} tag at the top of the article, which seems to make it fall under the quick-fail criteria. Now it's not immediately obvious to me why the tag is there, given that there are, at least at first glance, a large number of wiki-links in the article, but from looking at the article edit history, the tag seems to have been placed by in good faith by User:Hmains along with a large number of useful copyedits, not vandalism. I'm going to drop Hmains a note, asking for details on the tag, but unless he explains that it was put there in error, I'm going to have fail the Wikipedia:Good article review without further examination. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:AnonEMouse)

Regarding the 'Byzantium under the Palaiologoi's' article: when I first found this article, it had almost no wikilinks. I proceeded to mark the article as wikify and then worked on linking it up. I did the most obvious links, but it ended up with some redlinks. I did not think I did a complete job and also thought that some of the redlinks might be turned blue with some searching work through WP, possibly finding misspellings, alternate names etc. So that is why I left the wikify notice on it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, then. Quick-failing GA (if 1 day can be considered quick) until that is done. I'd also suggest that the refs be moved after the punctuation throughout. Then it can be renominated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dionysos panthère satyre.jpg


Even with the generic caption Classical literature that was studied included mythical figures such as Dionysus, this is merely decorative here. A classicising sculpture of the Palaeologan period, or a Greek sculpture that was in Constantinople, would serve better as illustrative material. --Wetman (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to find such art? Otherwise, it stays. Tourskin (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick and choose: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete political system?[edit]

"The empire's political system, based as it was around an autocratic and semi-divine emperor who exercised absolute power, had become obsolete,"

Could someone explain this to me? Why was it that Byzantine autocracy was obsolete by the 15th century, yet Russian autocracy would form the basis of a viable state until the early 20th century, and Prussian absolutism in the 18th century is regarded as creating the most militarily efficient state of Europe? (Not to mention Bourbon France's success centuries after the fall of Constantinople.) No doubt the Byzantine system had its own unique aspects, but I think claims that religiously-based autocracy was an "obsolete" system in the mid-15th century demands some explanation. What's an example of a non-obsolete political system in the mid-15th century? (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes a total non-sensical expression, what is it doing here? Someone should remove it! and restore the encyclopedic tone and style in the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Too wordy[edit]

This article is simply too wordy. We need to trim it. HumanCentipedeStyle (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The map is inaccurate - it needs to be updated[edit]

The map in this article showing the year 1263 is woefully inaccurate. Sogut had already fallen to the Turks in 1231, and Eskisehir hadn't been under Byzantine rule since c.1185 at the latest. The frontiers of the restored empire stretched nowhere near that far east, and hadn't done for centuries. That map is misleading and gives the impression that the Empire held far more territory in Anatolia than was in fact the case at this time.

Below, I have posted a more accurate map, which reflects the historical evidence. I propose the frontier from this map should be applied to the one featured in the article. Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose we use this map here to correct the one on the main page in this article.

Edit 2

I have taken the liberty of updating it myself, to demonstrate what I mean. The result is posted below. However, I would ideally prefer if someone with more sophisticated editing tools would create a more 'perfect' version of it, based on the original map and incorporating my change of frontier. Thanks Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are my suggested changes

"Greek Byzantium" section[edit]

A. Why does the geographical extent of the empire at its height need a source? Read the article on Byzantine history, it has a myriad of sources.

B. .. "Greek culture came to dominate" - "cultural diversity" - firstly, did Greek culture not always dominate since Greek was adopted as the state language of the Empire centuries before (and even in Pagan times was not the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods the same and the architecture and the literature and everything else fused together into the Greco-Roman world..)?

Secondly, I do not see how political terms of "cultural diversity" belong in this article. It is so loaded with the current European way of looking at things, and did not even exist before 1935 ( so I think we should not try to force down over an article about a 14th century subject, what appears to be 20th and 21st century thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)