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


The structuring of this article remains a lot to be desired. Particularly the long rant under the subheading is somehow odd. Why make almost biblical lists of descent. Emperors and minor relatives are messed into one ramble. Where are the political reasons and implications of these relationships.

Does some writer imply that the entire dynasty had one politics during its 200 years. Did it alter when emperors changed. Did the time affect in any way. 19:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't know, you yourself wrote about half of that stuff... Adam Bishop 20:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The structure (despised by me) was already there. I have added important dynastic information, and corrected some huge mistakes/misunderstandings; all the time wondering how to treat the less-than-desirably structured mess. Are you able to provide answers to questions above. 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it like that in the interest of making the article less stubby, to mention all the Palaeologi I could find in the index of the book I was using, and, more importantly I suppose, to show all the other royal families they married into. My original padding could be removed without much damage, if it really distresses you so much. Adam Bishop 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary earlier, whatever the merits of the page were before you got here, it's now much worse. I don't even know where to begin to fix it, so forget it. Adam Bishop 18:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The page is now somewhat better than as it was from you. However, the present page welcomes some work. Its strength now is a viable structure. 21:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Palaiologi Flags[edit]

I've added three SVG files of the Palaiologi Dynasty flags. Two I created a while back for the Byzantine Empire article, were taken from a heraldry book - Heraldry - Sources, Symbols and Meaning - which was, in turn, taken from the Conoscimiento de todos los Reinos, a major source of information on the flags of the fourteenth century. The other flag - with the double-headed eagle - is a more recent creation (based on various images of 14th Century depictions) Dragases 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


MUST we tranliterate Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων, Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων with the Modern Greek 'Vasilefs Vasileon, Vasilevon Vasilevonton'? Can we use the proper academic transliteration of 'Basileus Basileōn, Basileuōn Basileuontōn'? InfernoXV —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was like that originally. I've changed it. Adam Bishop 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! InfernoXV 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything about what happened to the family after the byzantine empire? BV —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Am proposing a move to Palaeologus dynasty or Palaeologan dynasty per WP:COMMONNAME. As we all know: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

  • There is really no question that the Latinized form is several times more common than the current title, there are approximately 150,000 English hits for "Palaeologus" as opposed to the 37,000 English hits for "Palaiologos".
  • In addition, it is common practice to add "..dynasty" or "House of.." to the title of articles on ruling noble families. I personally prefer "dynasty", in accordance with the common practice for Roman noble houses (Julio-Claudian dynasty, Flavian dynasty, etc.).

-- Director (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose on the latinized form. This has been discussed extensively before, Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming, Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos/Archive 1, and a very similar discussion took place at Talk:Komnenos. The de facto practice and consensus has been to use the forms found in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, which are also increasingly being adopted by the more recent historical works. If you search the publications of the past 30 years, the numbers are practically even. Plus, given the amount of citations from older works or the reprints of older works, the ODB form is probably more common. The universal trend in scholarship is towards more "native"-looking forms whether in Greek, Turkish or Chinese. On the "dynasty" part, I am not convinved it is not really needed. The article covers the family before it became an imperial dynasty (and should also be expanded to cover the later known members as well). I am not, however, in principle opposed to "Palaiologos family/dynasty" or similar forms. Constantine 16:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NAME is rather explicit on this issue. And even if we do just look at the last 30 years for some reason (and there's no real reason whatsoever to disregard the tens of thousands of scholarly publications dating from before June 1982), we still get 7,000 hits for "Palaiologos" and 13,000 hits for "Palaeologus". Mind you I don't accept the premise of "searching for the time period until the test results agree with me". It has no basis in policy.
Re "dynasty". Few families are founded as royal or imperial dynasties, and practically all have a history before they assumed the throne of this realm or that. The point is that this was a dynasty, and the title should denote that.
-- Director (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some internal consistency? I haven't checked which of the three forms is the prevalent one, but as there's Constantinian dynasty, Valentinian dynasty, Theodosian dynasty, Justinian dynasty, Heraclian dynasty, Isaurian dynasty etc. Palaeologan dynasty seems to be a better choice than Palaeologus dynasty.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your proposal is indeed more appropriate, I agree. I've amended the initial proposal post. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR: the timeframe is not chosen so that the results agree with my view (as you so easily demonstrated, they don't), but to show what the trend is in recent scholarship. Even scholars who used the latinized forms, like Nicol and Herrin, are using the ODB system in more recent publications. Anyhow, the chief issue here, and the main reason why I oppose it, is that this is not simply about the Palaiologos family alone. Any decision here will affect all Byzantine articles, for reasons of consistency, and that has to be taken into account. We cannot have "Palaeologus" and "Doukas" or "Kantakouzenos" side by side. If we return to latinized forms it will have to be done for all Byzantine articles. So this is the wrong place to discuss this, it needs a centralized discussion.
@Zjarri: the difference is that "Palaiologos" is a surname in and of itself, while the "Heraclian/etc" is descriptive, taken from their foundeing emperor. Constantine 19:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No but its a common "maneuver" in these sort of commonname debates. Actually, what the tests show, is that the current trend is to use the Latinized form. But even if that were not so, it is not a legitimate move to disregard thousands upon thousands of publications in determining COMMONNAME. "Trends" do not concern us.
  • While we should try and have a consistent title format ("XY dynasty"), what name we apply to said format should be determined by COMMONNAME on a case-to-case basis. A centralized discussion is not necessary at this time, as it would not be acceptable for anyone to decide to ignore policy and use the, e.g., Latinized form or Greek form etc.
  • Re your reply to ZjarriRrethues. It doesn't really matter what the name derives from (Syrians? Macedonians?), the point is to have consistency and to follow WP:NAME. The Latinized form is far more common in this case.
-- Director (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring policy is a perfectly acceptable and encouraged tradition on Wikipedia when the policy turns out to be inferior to a better rule. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Anarchy in the UK! :) The point is that the Latinized version is more common, and, policy aside, its closer to the English-speaking reader as well. To use it would imo undoubtedly be an improvement. I mean those policies are written for a reason (right?), "Palaeologan" or "Palaeologus" is what this family goes by most of the time. -- Director (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I've previously come across the argument that "Palaeologus" is closer to English than "Palaiologos" (between other editors, cf. the discussions linked above), but this is complete nonsense. If anything, they are both equally unknown to the average English-speaking person. If "Völkerwanderung", "Schadenfreude" or "perestroika" can find a place in English, then the argument that the latinized forms are somehow inherently preferable is shot down. The only reason that they came about in the first place was the earlier predominance of Latin in Western Europe. In the same vein, we should revert Mumbai to Bombay, or Beijing to Peking (and guess what, Bombay has oodles more GBooks hits than Mumbai). In the relevant scholarly field, the ODB form is gaining ground and is used equally if not more than the latinized form, period. And the same goes for literally any historical field: the native forms are gaining ground, regardless of readability. We no longer say Mahomet or even Mohammed, but increasingly Muhammad. Mahomet II is now Mehmed II (and yes, Mahomet II is twice as common in GBooks as Mehmed II and four times more so than Mehmet II). In short, GBooks results are fine, but they don't paint the whole picture. One has to take trends in academia into account (have a look at Google Scholar results, for instance: Palaiologos (1420 hits) vs. Palaeologus (1790 hits), but in more recent literature, the ODB form becomes prevalent).

Furthermore, on the move process itself, I repeat: if you move the family name, you will also have to move the members of the family (a few dozen articles), and then you will have to move Komnenos to Comnenus, Kantakouzenos to Cantacuzenus, etc. Anything else is simply ridiculous and, if anything, would certainly lessen the readability of Byzantine articles. You cannot decide this on a case-by-case basis, because it runs counter to a long-standing (for Wikipedia), de facto consensus on precisely this theme: the transliteration for Byzantine names. There has to be uniformity, otherwise the argument for readbility and accessibility to the average reader makes no sense. So I would ask for more input from other editors than just my and DIREKTOR's arguments on this. Only with a broader consensus should this change take place, and then I would expect those involved to actually help with implementing it across the board. Constantine 12:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Per Constantine who makes excellent points regarding the academic currency of ODB. Also per a multitude of similar discussions in the past which have examined exactly the same issues. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)"

New template reverted[edit]

I just reverted a newly-created template which in my opinion is a POV addition to the article by making it appear as if the Byzantine Emperors were Latinised Roman Emperors. Any such new template must be discussed and approved prior to its use in any article, especially when it tries to erase the distinction between the Byzantine era and the old Roman Empire. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing the new template, but can you please explain exactly in what manner does the template suggest these were "Latinized" Roman emperors? Because these were Roman emperors, but they certainly weren't "Latinized". ...Come to think of it, how would one "Latinze" a Roman Emperor? :) -- Director (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know it can be confusing. Let's say the imperial family were from a Byzantine dynasty and the template called them "Roman Imperial Dynasty" presto they became Caesars. It is the old debate about "Eastern Roman Empire" versus "Byzantine Empire" etc. only this time they simply become just a part of the Roman Empire. There has to be a distinction between the Byzantine times and the ancient Roman era. The template obscures this distinction. So my expression "Latinised" refers to the "Latinisation" of the Byzantine Emperors through the use of the template. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually I dare say I'm very familiar with the history of the Byzantine Empire (as a layman). There is no "Eastern Roman Empire" versus "Byzantine Empire" debate. Those are both valid historiographical terms (applied in later centuries) for the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. No historian contests that this was the Roman Empire, and that these people are Roman emperors, they just use a different name for this period.
All that said, moving on to the template. I do not see how a template called "Roman Imperial Dynasty" makes one a "Caesar". It makes one a Roman emperor ("Roman Imperial Dynasty"). The title "Caesar" was actually used by the Byzantines as the title of the heir apparent (see Caesar (title)), which of course all goes back to Diocletian and the tetrarchy, etc. And, this is a simplification, but the office of the Roman emperor can be said to have mostly been equivalent to the title "Augustus", which, just for example, was the title held by the Byzantine emperor Justinian the Great..
The point here is that its perfectly accurate to suggest these are Roman emperors. I'm not proposing we actually call them "Roman Emperors", since that is not a term used by historiography, but to call the dynasty "Roman Imperial Dynasty" seems to me perfectly accurate and acceptable. Thoughts? -- Director (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. It is not the fact of calling them "Roman Imperial Dynasty" that may or may not be accurate, but that the adjective "Roman" is put at a highly visible position in the article through the infobox at the expense of any other descriptive to designate that this family is in fact not an ancient Roman family but a Byzantine imperial family. This has the effect of onomatologically and descriptively bypassing the Byzantine era and favouring a Roman-centred narrative of the history of Byzantium and doing it in not a very subtle way through the infobox. So even though they are not described as "Roman emperors" by historians the infobox describes them as "Roman imperial dynasties" which is just another way of calling them "Roman Emperors". The fact remains that these families are known and described historically primarily as Byzatine emperors or Byzantine families and not as Roman emperors or Roman families, irrespective of whether a case can be made that they were the inheritors of the early Roman empire. Having said that, your current modification of the infobox descriptives from "Roman" to "Byzantine" is acceptable to me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Again: a Byzantine family is a Roman family. Ask a Palaeologan whether he's a Roman, and he'll say "of course". In fact, call him anything else (like "Greek" or anything) and you're liable to get thrown into the dungeon to contemplate your error (which actually happened iirc, when a Latin called the emperor "king of the Greeks", I think it was Nicephorus II Phocas and a Roman envoy called "Ludeprone" or something).
"Byzantine" = "Roman, in the Middle Ages". It is a historiographical term for the Roman Empire and the Romans in a specific period. Or in other words, "Roman" is a wider term than "Byzantine", and includes it. It is no error to use the term Roman Imperial Dynasty for the Palaiologoi. -- Director (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe but it is a modern historiographical convention to refer to these people and this period as "Byzantine". The original Roman Emperors did not consider themselves to be governing an Empire. Should we go undo all those Roman Empire articles? They also thought they were descended from Trojans. Should we make sure all their articles say so? In any case, the name you are looking for is Liutprand of Cremona. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Adam. We should use the modern historiographical convention to refer to these people and this period as "Byzantine" and we should not try to bypass the existing historiographical convention through the use of infoboxes by introducing our own conventions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

1678 dissolution[edit]

Period - 11th century (founded) – 1678 (dissolved) - what does 1678 suppose to mean? Montferrat line died out in 16 century, but why 1678? Dorimi (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin of family name[edit]

What does the name mean? Does anyone know? ahassan05

The component words mean "old" and "word" (amongst other things), and according to, this a 15th century chronicler said it should be interpreted as "renowned of old". DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)