Talk:Eastern Roman Empire

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles

Former countries

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Article Controversies[edit]

Are you guys freaking kidding me? You've got two sources on this page, and they're both to the oldest neo-Nazi Web site on the Internet.

This article should be killed and "Eastern Roman Empire" redirected to "Byzantine Empire," IMO.

Aemathisphd 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, really I didn't know that they were neo-nazi websites.

Mrld 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up the right links. The Eastern Empire was the name of the empire until the fall of the west, then it became the Byzantine Empire.

"The Eastern Empire was the name of the empire until the fall of the west, then it became the Byzantine Empire." Nonsense. The name "Byzantine Empire" was not even used by citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire. The name dates AFTER the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a thorny one. I had some major arguments with people as to whether the Eastern Empire was "Roman" even before the fall of Rome. The historical fact is that it was politically/culturally the same state as what started in Rome (arguing that the move to Constantinople made it a different state is revisionist history) and continued to be so at least until the Fourth Crusade if not until the "Fall of Constantinople". The name "Byzantine" for the later era was invented as a sly insult by the West (the Westerners/Franks started calling it the "Greek Empire" arguing that the Westerners were the descendents of the Romans and then when they decided that they were descendants of the Greeks they called it the Byzantine Empire). In one sense it is wrong to have a separate article for the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire because they were in fact the same nation. But then it is nearly equally "wrong" to have "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire" be separate and similarly it is wrong to have "Frankish Empire", "Carolingian Empire", and "Holy Roman Empire" be separate as well. The key difference, though, is that the term Byzantine Empire was deliberately chosen to slight the Roman heritage and is indeed confusing to the layman. Personally I think the term Byzantine should be tossed out altogether but that is a decision for the professional historians to make (of which I am certainly not one) so for now the term stands. I do think, though, it should not be treated as wrong to call the later history "Eastern Roman" since that is a clearer indication of their identity. Certainly most modern historians do not consider using the term "Roman" wrong although the majority still use "Byzantine".

For me (if my opinion means anything) I don't have a problem with having an "Eastern Roman Empire" article parallel to the "Western Roman Empire" article with the clear understanding that both define subsets of the larger state. I do, however, have a concern about calling this article "Eastern Roman Empire" and the having the the later period called "Byzantine Empire". I think it implies something that is not true and is potentially confusing. One solution might be to have this be a disambiguation page pointing to two articles, one called maybe "Early Eastern Roman Empire" and the other called "Byzantine Empire" (I'd prefer "Later Eastern Roman Empire" but I'll yield to what is more common).

Regardless, I do think this article should be switched back to a redirect until these questions are settled and that sufficient meaningful content can be added to the article.

BTW, to be clear there is no general consensus as to when the Byzantine Empire "began" and the article should be very clear on that point.

--Mcorazao 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the bloody article with "Byzantine Empire". That is my opinion. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 05:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Byzantine Empire[edit]

The merge into the Byzantine empire would not make sense. The Eastern Empire talks about the separate Empire form the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire in 476 when Rome fell in the west. This Empire deserves its own article. Mrld 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it became the Byzantine Empire in the 17th century. It always was the Eastern Roman Empire, and after the fall of the West in 476, it was the Roman Empire, by any definition of the term. If you want to write an article about the early Byzantine Empire, you are welcome to do so, but not under the heading "Eastern Roman Empire", which is widely recognized as coterminous with the term "Byzantine Empire". Use another name, e.g. "History of the Byzantine Empire (330-476)" instead. Else it is misleading, implying that some radical change took place for the East in 476 that transformed the Empire, which is not the case. Regards, Cplakidas 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The claim that "The Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire in 476" makes no sense; there was of course no official act of renaming, and both names ("eastern" & Byzantine") are merely conventional; there are furthermore historians who prefer "Eastern Roman Empire" to refer to the entire history of what is also called the "Byzantine" (e.g. Bury, more recently Dawson); all that happened in 476 was that the Roman/Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire lost control of Rome. They gained it back in the sixth century; should we then switch back after a hundred years' pause from "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman"? etc.

Worse, however, is that the article does not consistently apply its own criteria; in the military section there are references to Belisarius & Justinian (6th c.) & the Arab fleet (7th). Redirect; if an article on early Byzantine is felt necessary, then rename. --Javits2000 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but I don't see the problem with having two (god forbid) related articles. The Eastern Empire did presecde(sp?) the Byzantine Empire just as a small point in the argument. There is no problem with having two articles that are related historically.Philippe Auguste 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman empire is ruled by one emperor Constantine I, who moves the capital to Byzantium renamed Nova Roma in 330, the empire was first divided, East-West, long before by Anthony and Octavian, reunited under a single emperor and redivided a number of times among 2-4 rulers. The list of Eastern Roman emperors in the article is somewhat misleading as the ones before Charlemagne are Roman Imperators.Tttom1 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

This article was blanked. Why? I have reverted the blank for now. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be merged with Byzantine Empire[edit]

Having the two articles as seperate is ridiculous. They were seperate once; then were combined and stayed so until someone decided to seperate it again. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, redirecting to Byzantine Empire.--Javits2000 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Byzantine Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]