Talk:List of Byzantine emperors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archives: Archive 1, Move debate.

Requested move[edit]

I have closed the move debate as no consensus. In order to make it clear that the debate is no longer live, I have archived it to: Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming. Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

Should we use Hellenized or Latinized forms for Byzantine Emperors and dynasties?--Semioli

Aw, not again... Adam Bishop 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What Adam means is; see the archived pages (and the dates of the last posts.) A lot of editors have voted for freezing the situation for the time being and collecting more information. I'd suggest we stick to this plan. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not realize all of this. It was Imladjov who pointed me here on a matter about Constantinople patriarchs. Just a question: what do you mean by "collecting more information" and who is actually doing this?--Semioli 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors/naming#Moratorium:_a_modest_proposal. User:Andrew Dalby has offered to try to collect more data as to the use of the two forms, both in relation to context (scholarly- / non-scholarly literature) and in terms of time of publication, since so much of this dispute has revolved around the ratio between the Oxford forms (closer to Greek) versus the Latinized forms in recent material (thanks again, Andrew!) This decision is not binding, but has been voted for by many editors (myself included). The exact form of this investigation will be take place at a time when we've all had a good chance to cool off and reflect of this issue. Following that, data will be collected and used in a later debate on this topic. The collection of data will take time, and anyone is of course more than welcome in helping out in this task. Good ideas on how to do it in practice are also extremely welcome - e.g., it would be incredibly nice if we could find a database already containing most of the relevant publications. Alas, I do not know of any. Finding out how we could get more information on hit rates for the articles in questions might be worth a consideration as well. Given the heated nature of the last debate, I believe it would be the wiser solution to place this issue on the backburner for the time being to allow everybody a chance to think. (I sometimes wonder what the Byzantines would have said if anybody had ever told them that they'd still be controversial more than 500 years after their deaths.) Regards. Valentinian (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was never quite sure whether my proposal got consensus or not. It seems it more-or-less did. Ah well. In due course I will put a message on some of the other talk pages saying that the issue will be under consideration again in early 2007 and inviting assistance, as Valentinian outlines above. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This so-called consensus is nonsense - maybe this should have been done before all the page moves to Komnenos et al took place. Maybe they should be moved back to the original pages for this period of consideration. Roydosan 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List appearance[edit]

Does anyone else find this list, in its present revision, amazingly difficult to read? Perhaps it should be reorganized into tabular form. -- 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talkcontribs)

It is difficult to read. If you have a good format in mind, be bold. Valentinian T / C 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Readability could probably be improved by removing the Greek versions of the names. If these are necessary (and I can hardly think that they are at all, especially with the Greek Wiki), they should be limited to the first line (or a footnote) of the articles. Separating regents and those who ruled in the name of an emperor by further indentation would probably help, too. Also, the notes relating one emperor to another should be kept to a bare minimum and should only reference relevant connections which explain the succession. Srnec 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Srnec, with your proposals. And as always, I discourage turning this into a table, unless we want to go all the way to adding pictures and stuff.
I don't know how many regents we have in this list but they should be indented. However, Emperors deposed and restored should not. Str1977 (smile back) 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a good format at hand, but I believe the Greek names are relevant. After all, Greek was the administrative language of the Empire, and other lists also add the native names, e.g. List of Portuguese monarchs. Valentinian T / C 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But Portuguese monarchs regularly appear under Portuguese names in English (Duarte and Diniz). Greek emperors appear under Greek or Latin transcriptions: Alexius or Alexios, not in the Greek alphabet, which most Anglophones cannot even read. Srnec 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And remember: this is a list. Every Emperor has his own article. Str1977 (smile back) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the tables to be extremely annoying. There is so much biographical info for each emperor that each emperor's entry becomes a page long. -- (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Emperors[edit]

The article inaccurately states "The emperors between 300-600 AD regarded themselves as Roman Emperors". Every single Byzantine Emperor considered themselves to be Roman Emperors. Don't forget, History doesn't care what Historians think just as Mother Nature doesn't care what Scientific theories Scientists propose. The Byzantines called themselves Romanoi or Roman.

I think what the article is trying to say is that the Emeprors from 300 to 600 AD were recognized by the Western Germanic Kingdoms as Roman? Anyone here say so?Tourskin 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not until Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas Day 800 that the Western Kingdoms legitimately contested the East Roman Empire's status as the successor to Ancient Rome. Until then the Emperors of Constantinople were considered the undisputed successors of Rome.Zambetis 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, the Eastern Empire's status was not contested at all. Certainly not by Charlemagne. Some considered the sole of Irene a problem - later some polemically used the term "King of the Greeks" - but no one ever contested that the Eastern Empire was Roman. Str1977 (smile back) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the coronation of Charlemagne as "Roman Emperor" was viewed as a direct challenge to the universality of the Roman Empire in Constantinople and, like you said, the fact that a woman was on the throne at the time was a taint to its legitimacy for the West. Whether or not the legitmacy of the Roman Empire was directly contested, the coronation of Charlemagne serves as a watershed, after which the Roman Empire in Constantinople was viewed more as a "Greek" than a "Roman" entity.Zambetis 06:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There had been two Emperors in the past. The appelation "Greek" was a polemic but there never was a questioning of fact called the Roman Empire. Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Nor am I arguing that. "Byzantines" called themselves "Romans" down to the last day. But what I am arguing is at what point in history did the Roman Empire in Constantinople begin to be PERCEIVED as Greek. Historians use Heraclius' reign as the defining moment of "Byzantium's" "Greekification", for instance. In terms of the Western Kingdom's perception, 800 marks the most convenient date to indicate when the Western Kingdoms began to view the Roman Empire in Constantinople as something "else", mainly Greek. That was why I objected to the previous version. However, I find the current edit: "Although he and his successors regarded themselves as Roman emperors, the reign of Heraclius marks a watershed or decisive break that marks the beginning of the Greek phase of the eastern Roman Empire. After 800 AD the claim to the Roman Empire was shared with Holy Roman Empire." acceptableZambetis 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
But you are mixing two things: the usage of the Greek language and the administrative reforms begin under Heraclius in the 7th century - and it affected the Eastern Empire big time. The changes around 800 did only in so far as the Empire's losing grasp of the West was the pre-condition for the Franks (and no other "Germanic Kingdoms") stepping in. But if you are fine with the latest wording, our dispute is settled. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoah people - this discussion is becoming irrelevant. It is an undisuptable fact and very much common knowledge that every last Byzantine Emperor regarded themselves as the heirs to Rome and thus saw themselves as Roman Emperors. What language they spoke, what culture they belonged to and most of all what people thought of them has nothing to do with what the Byzantines thought of themselves. And they thought they were Roman Emperors, hence Basil I's stern letter to the HRE and mocking his title of Emperor in the 9th century. Even the Turks and the Arabs saw them as Romans, as seen by their name Rum (pronounced like "room" i know cos i'm iraqi). Also, the Ottoman Sultans, who destroyed Byzantium, took the title Kayseri Rum, which meansa Ceasar of the Romans. Tourskin 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What were their subsidiary titles, or kingdoms, principalities, etc?[edit]

Please make a list. 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Byzantine emperors really used these kinds of titles as Western monarchs did... --Jfruh (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Occasionally the title, King over Kings, Ruling over Rulers was used. Tourskin 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Royalty?[edit]

Where's the proof that the title "Emperor" was bestowed upon anyone after 1453? It's very hazy--I don't think the average person associates Constantinople with F y I, the Catholic Monarchs. Please, elaborate on the background with sources. 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Habsburg rulers, traditionaly Holy Roman Emperors, regarded themselves as Roman Emperors. The King of Spain today has relations with all Monarchs, above all with the French Bourbon dynasty and the House of Habsburg. Consequently, the King of Spain is also, by right of blood (along with countless other surving royal-blood descendants) the King of many domains, including that of the Holy Roman Empire and consequently the Roman Empire. Tourskin 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This question has also been posted (and answered) at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.  --Lambiam 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Wikipedia lists the Spaniards as having some unique claim to the Roman Empire, but this is a totally crackpot theory. (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The question whether the title "Roman Emperor" passed into the Spanish or the Holy Roman line has been answered thus: "Charles V's brother became Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Austrian lands while his son Philip became ruler of the Spanish, Italians, and Burgundian lands." If that is not an answer, you need to explain why not – but we can do without rants against Wikipedia and the volunteers who put their effort into writing and improving the articles, as well as answering questions. There are more than two million articles in Wikipedia, and without a better reference there is little we can do with a statement such as "Wikipedia lists the Spaniards as having some unique claim to the Roman Empire". If you see something that is wrong, then fix it – provided that you cite reliable sources for your edits. Finally, cross-posting is discouraged, and it is not at all clear why you think a page about the Byzantine Emperors is a suitable spot to discuss a putative problem with a statement about Spaniards.  --Lambiam 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are making a straw man out of this. Look at my response below. (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, who is arguing what? It looks as though the two of you have crossed paths of argument. I'll say what I know (which is effectively summarising what WP already says: the last Palaeologus, Andrew, nephew of Constantine XI, left a will in which he designated Isabella and Ferdinand as his heirs to his rights in the Empire. Thus, arguably, Isabella and Ferdinand became Emperor and Empress of Constantinople - or, perhaps, just the rightful heirs to Constantinople. The idea, I suppose, was that as a pretty dynamic and successful and religiously zealous pair, they were likely to claim it and launch a crusade (Andrew previously attempted to sell his rights to Charles VIII of France, another bellicose monarch). What happened to that afterwards, I don't know; List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown doesn't appear to know, and certainly no actual action was taken to claim Constantinople, so perhaps the Catholic Monarchs didn't bother to do anything about it.
It's debateable if F&I had even been willed the title itself, or merely Andrew's rights to the throne: in Constantinople, one did not become monarch by divine right from the moment of the previous monarch's death; one became emperor, either after the emperor's death, or in his lifetime if he chose or rebellion broke out, through the acclamation of the Constantinopolitan populace and army, the consent of the senate (not that that ever meant anything), the coronation of the emperor by the patriarch, and the reverence of the Patriarch before the emperor to show loyalty. Unless that ceremony was carried out, one was not emperor - and since F&I, and for that matter Andrew Paleologus, were never subjects of such a ceremony, whilst they might have claimed to be 'emperor in exile', even Andrew's rights to do so would have been shaky - he'd have had a good right to claim the title, but even if by some chance Constantinople had during his lifetime been recaptured by his allies or the Greeks, he would have only been a high ranking contender for the title, not the automatic holder of the title. That being the case, I doubt F&I and Charles V afterwards would have measured it very highly as compared to that of HRE - HRE was a real title, even if unaccompanied by real power; their rights in Constantinople would have been worth even less than those of Charles in Burgundy (where he could claim to be rightful Duke, rather than to have vague rights to the title).
In any case, Andrew's right to will the title was highly dubious anyway: the empire belonged to whoever could get it, as Byzantine history shows, and by that logic, the Ottoman sultans (who actually held Constantinople) had a far better claim; and, of course, if one favours the western hereditary rights argument, then the remaining Paleologi, perhaps the family of Tsarina Zoe in particular, had far better rights as the blood of Constantine XI than a pair simply given a claim in a will.
I doubt I've been very much help to whoever was asking the question, but I hope I've clarified some points of the issue. Certainly, it was worth raising the point here, regardless of whether it was raised elsewhere. Michael Sanders 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael, the question was whether the title, if having been devolved through the Royal Catholics, stayed with Spain or went with the HRE title for Ferdinand, because the Spanish and Austrian sides remained separate. One would think that if there was legitimacy to the Byzantine title, as sold to the Reconquistadors, then it would have been sensible to have given it to the Holy Roman Emperor rather than the King of Spain, to nullify any and all rival claims to imperium in Europe. In fact, I think that was one of the issues of the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment--absolute power corrupts absolutely. (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the eyes of western europe, the title HRE already had all the legitimacy it needed - indeed, if the western notion of translatio imperii was still around, it could have been argued that the Byzantine empire had been illegitimate since 800 anyway - and for the HRE to admit the legitimacy of the Byzantine title would have been to question the legitimacy of his own, since it had been gained by dubious means in 800 - and the HR Emperor was in enough trouble regarding power in the empire without adding in a debate over his legitimacy to rule.
But it's unlikely that any of that was an issue. I seriously doubt F&I, and Charles, were particularly bothered about the claim - it was the aim of any potential crusader after 1453 to recapture Constantinople (Philip the Good held a feast in which he swore to do so in 1454), and, as 1204 demonstrates, anyone could become Constantinopolitan emperor. Furthermore, much of the lands that Charles ruled in had never been ruled by the Roman emperors, only the HREs - which might explain why northern Germany went protestant, but ignores the realities of the fact that Charles wouldn't have risked his power further there. And Charles was not a romantic man - he knew that the Byzantine title would give no extra power, that anyone would laugh if he tried to use it to reinforce HRE power, and that he was better off attempting to reinforce the power of the HRE. Furthermore the Roman notion of imperium was becoming increasingly irrelevant; Charles already ruled the Spanish Empire, the greatest power in the world of that time, even if there was no 'Spanish emperor'; so any attempts to prevent rival imperia would have been on the pratical level of preventing France building up its power in Italy and Europe, not concerns about rival 'emperors'.
(Incidentally, you could just as easily argue that the reformation and the enlightenment developed because of the removal of the Byzantine emperors. With one emperor gone, the other, due to his weakness of power and the autonomy of his princes, looks increasingly irrelevant; and so the European monarchs begin to claim the absolute power over the church and state which hitherto had been the prerequisite of the Byzantine Emperors. And leads to a swing-back by the European populace). Michael Sanders 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well then, did not the HR Emperors act as lieutenants of the Papacy, per Donation of Constantine? That would make the Popes the Western rulers, as the Emperors in Constantinople were the Eastern rulers. Or, did the extinction of the Byzantine line make a precedent by which the Pope no longer had to crown them in Rome? Is that also how the Emperor was able to invade the Papal States (Donation of Pepin), without cost to his crown? The unresolved question, most of all, is whether the Byzantine (legitimist) title went extinct due to its irrelevancy--or whether it went to Spain (needs evidence). It would also seem that between this Renaissance and the Enlightenment is the only time the Holy Roman Empire had any measure of significance, but as it began in the form of a barbarian imitation of the French (Frankish Gaul), it also fell by the same people (under Napoleon) who thought it had outlived its usefulness, probably since there was no counterweight in Constantinople to compare with. I think that after this time, several European nations considered themselves rightful claimants to Roman style government, but none of them truly had this, including the Russians. It took the United States to truly reintroduce classical government, because it was built in the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople and had no Mediaeval baggage. (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Popes claimed that the Emperors were their lieutenants, just that the Donation gave them the power to bestow or take away the imperial title if they so wished. And the Papacy would have claimed that they had as much power over the Byzantine title, by the Donation, as over HRE - that is, if they hadn't simply stuck to the argument that the Byzantine emperors since 800 had been illegitimate.
However, by 1500, all this was becoming increasingly outdated and irrelevant. The Papacy simply weren't able to credibly claim any sort of temporal superiority over kings (the Babylonish Captivity and the Schism had seen to that) and was increasingly being seen as corrupt and sacrilegious. Meanwhile, royal power was increasing due to improvements in circumstances and bureaucracy: the kings of England, France, and Spain were able to exert greater power in their kingdoms, put bigger and more powerful armies into the field, etc. The wars in Italy, for example, have little to do with the Donation of Pippin and Imperial titles (I doubt anyone remembered or cared about the Donation of Pippin by that time, since even the Papacy tended to grab power by illegitimate means, for example usurping Urbino), and everything to do with the abilities of the French and Spanish to send troops there, and a recognition that Imperial rights there could not be backed up, and a willingness to usurp them. As I said, the Fall of Constantinople seems to have degraded the respect given to the HR Emperors, since the 1600th century saw the HRE become even more irrelevant. Charles V, again: his attack on Rome had nothing to do with imperial rights (otherwise he would have justified it as such), and everything to do with the fact that he was the first HR Emperor to have the resources of an Empire (through the Spanish empire).
It was a time which saw an increase in political realism, and a move away from ritualism: the HR Empire became recognised as irrelevant and insignificant (it had been significant once, incidentally), and the princes made serious moves towards real independence, using the excuse of religion; it was a time when people didn't care so much about respecting the Pope, or paying lip service to an outdated empire, regardless of what claims it made; and whilst it would be nice to have confirmation, I suspect the lack of references in early modern histories suggests that the Byzantine claim was allowed to lapse - because I really doubt Charles cared about it. The reality was the Turkish Empire threatening Austria, and to the need to defend his interests militarily; sentimental claims to imperium would not have been of much interest to him, I suspect. Michael Sanders 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it that Spain was any more of an empire than any other country, not under Turkish rule? Both them (for the Reconquista) and Portugal (for Prince Henry the Navigator) were afforded special rights by the Borgias in the New World, while England's marital treaty with the Royal Catholics gave them permission to send John Cabot to Newfoundland, without any controversy whatsoever. The Valois French (allied with the Scots against the Anglo-Habsburg alliance, in England as well as Brittany) just didn't give a damn about Tordesillas and sent Verrazzano on their own terms, albeit quite late in the race. If Spain was an empire, than Henry VIII's claims to imperium were not less important. It's all because of Henry VII, his father, who was one clever man by far! (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos[edit]

If Sanders believes anything he told me above, then why does he constantly make Juan Carlos out to be a pretender of Constantinople? He's got User:Strothra breathing down my neck and coupled together, they have reinforced the opposite sentiment of what is written above and I'm now the subject of a 3RR edit war--I have replied, nevertheless. (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Okay, I read the list, and I don't think any of the emperors preceding Arcadius should be included. Here's why. It is true that Constantine I was the first Christian emperor and moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. However, he was initially emperor of Western Europe, and he ruled the whole empire from 324 until his death. After Constantine died in 337, the Roman Empire was divided and reunited several times. The permanent division did not occur until after the death of Theodosius I in 395. --The President of Cool 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But Constantinople was the capital of the empire under Constantine and his successors in the eastern empire. Michael Sanders 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but the eastern part of the empire did not permanently divide until 395. Everything that happened before that was just sitting emperors appointing co-emperors and/or arranging for the empire to be divided among their children. I don't think those temporary divisions count. --The President of Cool (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but technically, the two halves were reunited under Zeno (either after the fall of Augustulus or the death of Nepos, depending which source you read). And, in fact, large parts of the western empire were captured under Justinian - including Rome itself. So really, the division after Theodosius I was as (theoretically, and for a time semi-practically) temporary as the previous divisions.
Basically, 'Byzantine' is just a term used by historians to conveniently distinguish between the 'Romans' of Antiquity, and the inhabitants of the 'Roman Empire' in the Middle Ages. The problem with that is that there is no clear cut off-point of Roman/Byzantine: to start it at any point gives rise to issues such as this. However, since Byzantine can and is used to mean 'Constantinopolitan', it is arguably simplest, and most accurate, to list all those emperors who ruled over the empire whose capital was Constantinople. Michael Sanders 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


The current format of the article is a bit confusing. It's meant to be a list, isn't it? Or it's meant to be a table? A list seems preferable from a practical point of view.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Either that or fix the table. The current format of the page is atrocious. Srnec (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


After the closing of the Constantine I move proposals, I was about propose a compromise Constantine I the Great on the grounds that it would prohibit arguments from "consistency", since I knew that other Roman and Byzantine emperors sometimes had nicknames or family names after ordinals in their titles. But when surveying the current titles for Byzantine emperors I realised just how unsystematic it really is. So I have the following questions:

  1. Should articles on Byzantine emperors (just who is Byzantine is another question) use nicknames at all, ever? If so, always? If not always, when?
  2. What about family names like Palaiologos? Even if the family name exists but the family never formed a ruling dynasty? In other words, so we distinguish between family names and epithets?
  3. What nickname do we use when there are several possible languages: Greek, Latin, English? Should it depend on whether the emperor's name is rendered in Greek or English? If there is no English form and the emperor's name is in English, do we go with Greek or more familiar Latin?
  4. When do the Byzantine emperors begin and the Roman stop? With Constantine? Leo I? Zeno? Justinian I? When do we begin a consistent "Byzantine" nomenclature?
  5. Do we ever need to disambiguate with "(emperor)" as we sometimes now do? Could we use Leo I the Thracian instead of Leo I (emperor), for example? Is that always an option?
  6. When do we need to disambiguate (in the above-mentioned way)? All the Leos are disambiguated b/c of popes, but not all the Constantines are (yet). If we go to nicknames, they will be. In that case, should the current titles redirect or be made into dab pages requiring dab hatnotes atop the emperors' articles?

Now a look at a few cases:

  1. Nikephoros I could become Nikephoros I Logothetes or Nikephoros I Genikos, but I don't think either nickname is overwhelmingly common.
  2. Michael VI could become Michael VI Bringas (which I think is a family, but non-dynastic, name), Michael VI Stratiotikos or Michael VI Stratioticus (I think the Latin looks better with English "Michael"), Michael VI the Warlike or Michael VI the Bellicose (I don't know how common the English is, but I think warlike is more common than bellicose), or Michael VI Gerontas (I don't know if he is ever called Michael VI the Old. That's a lot of options if we even need to disambiguate, but there is a Pope Michael VI of Alexandria and Michaels I, IV, VIII, and IX are disambiguated.
  3. Constantine XI could become Constantine XI Dragases (his preference) or, in conformity with his family, Constantine XI Palaiologos. I think his current status looks odd considering all the other Palaiaologoi have a name after their ordinal and if we change the other Constantines he will have to be changed too.

Any comments? Or is this much ado about nothing? Srnec (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1) The nicknames are about the only disambiguation available prior to the rise of last names. Currently the only Emperors with last names who do not have them included in the article titles are:

I would not be against renaming them for consistancy reasons mostly.

2) When a last name does not exist, a nickname should work fine. Though note than not all emperors seem to have them. Currently the Emperors with nicknames not mentioned in the article titles include:

  • Constantine I. Supposedly "the Great". Actually "Saint Constantine" is much more common where I live (Greece).
  • Theodosius I. "The Great". A title mostly given to him by the Church.
  • Theodosius II. "The Calligrapher" but for some reason his article does not even mention it.
  • Leo I (emperor). "The Thracian".
  • Anastasius I (emperor). "Dicorus" (Greek: Δίκορος, "two-pupiled"). In reference to his having Anastasius had one eye black and one eye blue (heterochromia).
  • Justinian I. "The Great". Not even mentioned in his article.
  • Phokas. "The Tyrant". Byzantine historiography paints him in overwhelmingly negative colors. Though I suspect it had more to do Heraclius' propaganda than his harsh rule. The article does not even mention it.
  • Constans II. "The Bearded", for a stylistic choice in shaving.
  • Constantine IV. "The Bearded", for a common confusion with his father.
  • Justinian II. "Rinotmetos" or "Rhinotmetus" (Ρινότμητος, Rinotmētos, "the Slit-nosed"). For having his nose cut when deposed, yet restoring himself to the throne.
  • Tiberios III. "Apsimarus". Although it was actually his name previous to his elevation to the throne, tends to be used as a typical nick-name.
  • Philippikos. "Bardanes". Same deal. Regnal name and birth name used together.
  • (For some reason I have never seen "Anastasios II Artemios" used though his case is the same as with Tiberios III and Philippikos).
  • Theodosios III. ""Adramyttinos", because he was from Adramyttium.
  • Constantine V. "Kopronymos" (i.e. the Dung-named) derives from kopros (feces, also animal dung) and onoma (name). The nickname used by the hostile iconodule sources refers to him allegedly defecating in the baptismal font or the imperial purple cloth with which he was swaddled.
  • Artabasdos. The "Icon-Lover" or the "Iconodule" for his religious affiliation.
  • Constantine VI. "The Blinded" for the manner of his deposition.
  • Irene (empress). "The Athenian", because she was from Athens.
  • Nikephoros I. "Logothetes" because he was finance minister (logothetēs tou genikou) prior to his elevation to the throne.
  • Michael II. Two nick-names. (1)"The Amorian", because he was from Amorium and his entire dynasty is named after it. (2) "Traulos" or "Psellos" (Τραυλός, Ψηλλος, Latin Psellus), meaning "the Stammerer". Simply because of his stuttering. Note that the second needs disambiguation with Michael Psellos who is a different person.
  • Michael III. "The Drunkard". Because he was supposedly murdered while drunk.
  • Basil I. "The Macedonian". Because he was from Macedonia (theme) and that is the name given to his entire dynasty.
  • Constantine VII. "Porphyrogenitos" ("born in the Purple". Because unlike several of his predecessors, he was born to a reigning emperor.
  • Basil II. "Boulgaroktonos" (the "Bulgar-slayer").
  • Michael V. "Kalaphates" ("the Caulker") for the occupation of his father.

I feel "the Great" throws NPOV out of the window. Would not be opposed to see any of the rest included in titles. In what form or language is a good question that should probably be decided on a case-by-case discussion.

3) Emperors who are known neither by nickname or last name include:

I am not sure how would you disambiguate them if needed.

Suggestions on how would you want a list to be rendered? Dimadick (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm still thinking about what to do with this... Srnec (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Split Article[edit]

I don't know if its just me but I think that the article should be split into two articles. These I believe should comprise of List of Byzantine Emperors (which already exists obviously) and Byzantine Emperor. I say this because many articles do this with an explanation of what the title is and the actual full history of the title and the list of the physical holders of the crown/s seperately. I propese a vote on this. If you would like to vote please but either a yes or a no at the begging of your message. Please put your vote at the bottom of the page and nowhere else to help keep the disccssion which will hopefully ensue simple and understandable. Thankyou. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes. Starter of disccussion. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Clean up[edit]

This list needs a clean up just as i did on the roman emperor list. If somebody wants to helo just contact me on the user page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto? (or something)[edit]

What about putting as the Emperor's motto "Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλευόντων Βασιλευομένων" that was widely something refering to them, as well as the meaning of the 4B flag?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the "Notes" column?[edit]

The excessive amount of text in the "Notes" column is stretching out the table into an unwieldy mess. I think we should get rid of that column altogether. (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it would be best to continue the column format used on the List of Roman Emperors page, which is much easier to follow. (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing emperors and wrong dates[edit]

Emperors Constantine Lekapenos (R 924-945, d 946), Emperor Stephen Lekapenos (R 924 -945, d 967) and Emperor Christopher Lekapenos (R 921 -931) are all missing from the list. Also Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r 1122-1142) this is not the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos this is the heir and coemperor of John II Komnenos who died before his father. Does anyone mind if I add them?

Emperors Basil reign from 960- 1025, not 976 to 1025. 976 is when he satopped using regent he was still emperor from 960 to 976 it talks about this on his page.

Emperor Constantine VIII ruled from 962 -1028, not 1025 -1028. He was coemperor this counts as part of his reign.

Emperor John II Komnenos was emperor from 1092 to 1143. His emperorship did not start when his father died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Byzantine emperors/Proposed move[edit]

I have moved a previous set of proposed moves to the above subpage of this talk page, like an archive, in case it is ever brought up again. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Many of the images of portraits on coins are too small to make out the actual portrait. In particular, those images which show both sides of the coin are much too wide to fit well in the portraits column. Since these are portraits, the coin reverse is irrelevant and interferes. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Byzantine person in exile Ferdinando Paleologos (coming from imperial family) dead at the Rupiblic of Barbados[edit]


Ferdinando Paleologos ( coming from imperial family) who died in 1678 has a burial chamber at the Church of Saint John in BARBADOS .

The source of this information is the book named ' Here There And Everywhere ' ,Author: Lord Frederic Hamilton,M. D. Plunkett page :56



ALI TUFAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitufann (talkcontribs) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


I would like to put informations about the Caesars (vice-Emperors), but I do not know which column to use. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Number System[edit]

As I have observed recently, numbering of Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) has been started with Constantine I up to Heraclius. I am surprised that most of the other 100 plus emperors up to Constantine XI have been given. There are 137 official emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire and should be numbered as such to show continuity.

It would give people who want to know how many Emperors were on the Eastern throne of the Roman Empire (Byzantine). So whoever was the one that started numbering the Emperors beginning with Constantine, can you do so for the emperors that have not been accorded the same treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talkcontribs) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This numbering idea is problematic and has a high potential for OR and POV. For one, there is no clear cut-off point between the "Roman Empire" and the "Byzantine Empire". The two are actually the same entity. The list of emperors traditionally begins with Constantine I, but it is very misleading to label Constantine I (or Theodosius I, Justinian, or Heraclius for that matter) as the "last Roman emperor" or as the "first Byzantine emperor" without some major qualifications to this statement, and infoboxes are inherently unable to provide that. In addition, the line of succession is by no means unambiguous: several lists omit short-lived usurpers like Basiliscus or Artabasdos, and/or include some or all of the numerous co-emperors. Constantine 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Changes[edit]

The following Emperors of the Byzantine Empire have a different infobox from the other Emperors and need to be fixed to bring fluidity to the Byzantine Emperors.

The infobox for these following Emperors need to be changed from {{Infobox royalty|monarch to {{Infobox Monarch

Michael I Rangabe

  • Constantine IX
  • Theodora (11th Century)
  • Manuel I Konmnenos
  • Alexios II Komnenos
  • Andronikos I Komnenos

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talkcontribs) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Emperors needing infoboxes[edit]

These following Byzantine Emperors have no infoboxes like their fellow Emperors and need to be created for them. The format should be that of {{Infobox Monarch to be in line with the Emperors with that type of infobox.

  • Alexios III Angelos
  • Alexios V Doukas
  • Andronikos II Palaiologos

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talkcontribs) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Byzantine emperors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked and fixed, using earliest, not one of the latest, archive snapshots. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of emperors[edit]

In the final paragraph before the contents, it is stated that there were 99 emperors in total. Accepting the list as accurate, and ignoring the fact that four of these were empresses, I make the total 96, as follows:

Constantinian 4 Valentinian 3 Theodosian 5 Leonid 5 Justinian 5 Heraclian 6 Isaurian 6 Nikephorian 3 Amorian 3 Macedonian 16 Komnenid 1 Doukid 4 Komnenid 5 Angelid 4 Laskarid 4 Palaiologan 10 Non-dynastic 9 Pretenders 3 Total 96

John V Palaiologos had three reigns, being deposed twice and restored twice. Similarly, Isaac II Angelos had two reigns. It seems to me that the three 'extra' reigns have been counted as though there were three more emperors, not the same emperors reigning a second and third time, Does anyone disagree? If not, I will change the figure.

-- (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you can account for the discrepancy. The paragraph was added here more than two years ago, without reference or explanation, from a Swedish ISP. Maybe it's cultural. Since there's no referral to the literature, it probably counts as WP:OR anyway. If you do make a change, you might include your analysis as a footnote, so other editors have more to go on. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)