Talk:Basil I

Sexuality of Basil I

I attempted to add a paragraph genuinely discussing the historiographical debate over Basil I's sexuality. My sources include not just John Boswell (although I do reference it, because Boswell is historiographically significant, not least because an entire chapter of Claudia Rapp's 2016 book addresses it) "Michael III and Basil the Macedonian: just good friends?" by Shaun Tougher, which was published in the essay collection, "Desire and Denial in Byzantium", edited by Liz Smith. As I noted in my edits, Tougher rejects John Boswell's arguments. And yes, it is historically significant; if not important because it deals with the personal life of a major historical figure and it makes Basil an example of how alleged homosexuality was conceptualized and confronted by historical sources, then because Basil's sexual relationships may have been a major reason behind his remarkable rise to power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C601:440:49B6:90E4:E8F0:60EC (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I neglected to sign my comment. Also I made my comment less confrontational; I apologize for my earlier anger. Chadsdenton (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It is usual to add new topics to the bottom of a talk page, rather than the top, where they may be missed, as this one was by me. Please see below. Urselius (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Armenian Name

I added/fixed Basil I's name in Armenian writing. Just letting people know, since it seems relevant that we include his Armenian name, since he was in fact of Armenian descent.

I find it very sad that many greeks feel it right to edit the true identity of Basil I's origins. I mean he was Armenian, and I have cited NUMEROUS references that point that out. The references that Antonios has cited are not able to be verified and are in greek, so that would lead one to think whether or not they are biased or even credible in any way. I have provided references that are not only from the Official Website on Constantinople from the Greek Government, but I also go ahead and cite references that are translated from the Greek into english. Basil I was Armenian, the entire dynasty was AT LEAST part Armenian. Kindly give the Armenians credit where credit is due. It is a WIDELY known fact that the Byzantine Empire was a Armeno-Greco Empire. If the nationalistic greeks cannot accept this, than they are NO DIFFERENT than the turks who deny the Armenian Genocide.

It is widely known that the Byzantine Empire was, as its predecessor the Roman Empire, a multicultural Empire in which the common element of the people was not, as it is in modern states, ethnicity, but the Christian (Orthodox) religion. Nonetheless one should acknowledge that the dominant ethnicity in the Empire was the Greek. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that Latin was replaced by Greek as the official language of the State during the reign of Heraclius. It would be an exaggeration to call Byzantium a Greek-Armenian Empire, since the Armenians is just one of the many ethnicities of the Empire whereas Greek is obviously the dominant one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.144.6.39 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

/.

The following was just posted this to Slashdot:

So while, say, the Robert Novak page is going to see a lot of dispute between now and whenever someone finally drives a stake through his heart, the page on the Byzantine Emperor Basil I (811-886 AD) probably isn't going to see a great number of worthwhile changes anytime soon. [1]

Someone will probably take this the wrong way. Something to look out for. Aaronrp 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Origins of Basil The 1st

There is some controversy surroundung Basil the 1sts ethnic origins, some say he was ethnically Armenian others say Greek, Does anyone know or have any verifiable sources which can confirm what his ethnicity/s were? E-mail adress 13:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any controversy. Who says they are Greek? Not Greek sources. A Greek source has been given already. Peter Charanis, born in Greece and called the "father Of Byzantine studies".--Eupator 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And Russian sources say he was Slavic. Let's return to the neutral wording. --Ghirla | talk 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So lets expand the section then. The current intro is using weasel words. There are no primary Russian or any other Slavic sources on his origin, Russian sources are based on primary Arab sources since they assumed that Macedonia was inhabited by Slavs. --Eupator 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added links to Armenian (ermeni.org) and English (E. Britannica) sources that prove the Armenian origin of Basil I (Armenian: Բարսեղ I)

--Armatura 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Ostrogorsky (the highest scientific authoritiy on the subject) says the ethnic origin of Basil I the Macedonian is unclear and almost certainly not Armenian! Why was he called Macedonian? He was named the Macedonian because it is possible that he was in fact of Macedon origin. (Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969).Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Age

I think the article shows Basil as being too old. He cannot have been more than a few years older than Michael III. I would assume that he was born in the 830's not 811.

Girlindajo Original Research/Vandalism

I cleaned up the article's contents. He is indesputably Armenian. Girlindajo tries to include a fringe point that has been dismissed by the scholarly community. On top, he has added original research by adding words as "grain of salt." If he continues this, I will report him to ANI.Hetoum I 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need edit wars and vandalism here. It's better to report NOW, because the part about Armenian origin of Basil I was reverted (reppaced with apparently incorrect info) more than once whithout providing sensible base for doing that. No offense to anyone, but we don't need pseudohistory here. Armatura 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To Hetoum I and Armatura. You say that the ethnic origin of Basil I the Macedon ( ὁ Μακεδών , the Macedonian!!) is indesputably Armenian!? There is NO evidence in the historical sources that he was of Armenian Origin. Look herefore Ostrogorsky (Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969) the most scientific authority on the subject of Byzantium. Please, if you have any primary historical sources than let us know! This what you are provding here is really pseudohistory or Googwik-science! Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Name

I added/fixed Basil I's name in Armenian writing. Just letting people know, since it seems relevant that we include his Armenian name, since he was in fact of Armenian descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.212.17 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you see the royal family of England is also of German descent, but we do not write their German name... Kapnisma ? 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ostrogorsky (the highest scientific authoritiy on the subject) says the ethnic origin of Basil I the Macedonian is unclear and almost certainly not Armenian! Why was he called Macedonian? He was named the Macedonian because it is possible that he was in fact of Macedon origin. (Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969).Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Armenian?

We now have unequivocal claims in the text of the article that Basil I was of Armenian origins.

This is untenable. The truth is that Basil's parents were obscure peasants from the Theme of Macedonia (what would have been part of classical Thrace). At the time Greeks, Slavs and Armenians were all living in Byzantine Thrace and Basil's ancestry could have been from any one or more of these peoples. Once he was in power court panegyricists gave him a lofty ancestry including from the Armenian Arsacids, Constantine the Great and Alexander the Great. All of these ancestries were confections designed to flatter the emperor. Rather than being uninformed the contemporary Arab writers who called Basil a 'Sclavonian' were impartial and not under any pressure, as were Byzantine writers, to flatter the ruling emperor.

Byzantine bynames were accurate: Leo the Armenian was of Armenian origins, Basil the Macedonian was from Macedonia and his ethnic ancestry is therefore vague, had he been of obvious Armenian speech, culture or religious background he would have been called 'Basil the Armenian.' The text needs to be balanced on its quoted sources, and an element of the real uncertainty concerning Basil's ethnicity has to be included.Urselius (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but what is your ref for all that? The article currently says "was born to Armenian parents" and that is referenced to (Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: University of Stanford Press. p. 455. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2). It then says "While one source has claimed him to be of Slavic descent, such assumptions have been dismissed as fiction by the scholarly world" and that is referenced to (Bury, John Bagnell (1912). A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I, A.D. 802–867. London: MacMillan. p. 165). Then "The sole foundation of the Slavonic theory is that Arabic writers designate him as a Slav; this is explained by the Arabic view that all Macedonians were Slavs", referenced to (Bury. Eastern Roman Empire, p. 165) and "Basil's first language was Armenian" referenced to (Norwich, John Julius (1991). Byzantium: The Apogee. New York: Viking. p. 79. ISBN 0-3945-3779-3). So what have you got? Herostratus (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ostrogorsky postdates Bury, and he didn't think the evidence for an Armenian origin was compelling, so the "such assumptions have been dismissed as fiction by the scholarly world" is demonstrably not the case. Finlay, who predates Bury, also was not convinced - saying that Armenian sources were just parroting the false genealogies of Byzantine court panegyrics. Please note I am not saying that Basil was not of Armenian extraction, just that there is no incontrovertable evidence that he was.Urselius (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also: Basil I, founder of the Macedonian Dynasty:a study of the political and military history of the Byzantine Empire in the Ninth century, Norman Tobias, 2007. p. 264. “The origin of Basil the “Arsacid,” the Slav, the Macedonian, the Armenian – we shall never know; nor is the birth of this bold but isolated figure a serious matter. But he depended on Armenian support, and received a crown with gratitude from an Armenian sovereign.” History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 1 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Vasiliev. P. 301. "it might be correct to assume that Basil was of mixed Armeno-Slavonic origin."

I would tend to agree that it a better formulation would be something like "Basil was born in the 830s in the Byzantine theme of Macedonia; his ethnicity is disputed. Some sources say he was of Armenian ethnicity (ref ref ref), some say Slavic (ref ref ref), and others say it's not possible to determine his ethnicity (ref ref ref)". Would this be OK? I would support this along with with striking "of Armenian descent" from the lede. I'm not very up on the subject and don't have the refs handy, but this seems clearly to be the better path and I would support this. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some formulation which highlights the uncertainty and the mixed messages from scholarly sources would be ideal.Urselius (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any changes to the current wording. As clearly stated in the article, the Arsacid genealogy was a later attribution meant to glorify the imperial bloodline, that's not under dispute. Basil's Armenian ancestry was a known fact long before Photios' fabrication. We have a very reputable, modern source stating the following: "Basil's first language was Armenian, and he spoke Greek with a heavy accent." - Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: University of Stanford Press. p. 455. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2. Also of note is that Basil's brother was named Symbatios, can't get more Armenian than that. It's possible that he also had Slavic ancestry, there's no question that the Armenian colonists intermarried with Slavsof Thrace but more weight should be given to the Armenian lineage. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, what about Ostrogorsky though? (Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969) George Ostrogorsky was a reasonably reputable academic, right? I'm not saying that Ostrogorsky is necessarily correct, but that this indicates that the issue is not settled, and we should say that instead of coming down firmly on side or another of the dispute. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Ostrogorsky? Can you attach the quote in question please. Most secondary sources attest to his Armenian origin, others including Ostrogorsky say it's uncertain but probably still Armenian. We can't assign equal weight to both positions. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is a demonstrable uncertainty in the academic sources, some sources give an Armenian origin, others Slavic, yet others hedge their bets by saying Armeno-Slavonic or indeed say that it is impossible to be certain what Basil's origins were. A bald statement in an encyclopedic entry that "Basil was Armenian" is not therefore supported, and an element expressing uncertainty must be included.

It should be noted that the Tobias book is the only book referenced which has the life and reign of Basil I as its main theme and it is very recent - 2007 (2nd ed. )- its view on the uncertainty of Basil's origins should not be lightly dismissed. Urselius (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Basil came of a peasant family that had settled in Macedonia, perhaps of Armenian origin." Encyclopedia Britannica - an encyclopedic entry with an element of uncertainty.Urselius (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:Eupator, looking at your user page, and your comments over the years above, I see that you have an agenda -- a plethora of agendae, actually. I have run up against this sort of thing over the years here on the Wikipedia -- Ukrainians vs. Russsians, Serbs vs. Croats -- and I have to say, I find it personally depressing to find people bringing these sterile millenia-long grudges into the 21st century.

I recognize that you truly believe that Basil I was Armenian, and I surmise there is no evidence that will shake your conviction in this matter. This leads me to take your arguments with a large grain of salt, and leaves me more convinced than ever that this person's ethnicity is, in fact, not likely discernable at this date with reasonable certainty.

I propose that I, or Urselius, or some other user correct the text of the article. Hopefully there won't be a fight over this, but if there is, we can then go through the required steps. Herostratus (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to do so, except my copy of Ostrogorsky and a number of other Byzantine history books are in storage at the moment. I should be able to scrape up a few references though.Urselius (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. A couple questions I have are:

• Is it so that, whatever he was, he almost certainly wasn't Greek? "...he spoke Greek with a heavy accent" (Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: University of Stanford Press. p. 455. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2). Is this reliable and accurate, and is there any source disputing that?

I would like to know what the primary source is for this. An Armenian accent for someone born in Thrace would be unusual, perhaps he merely had an uncouth rural accent.Urselius (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there sources, some saying "Armenian", some "Slavic", and some "don't know", or are all the sources saying "Slavic" unreliable? If so we could reduce it to "Armenian or unknown" rather than "Armenian, Slavic, or unknown". Herostratus (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The secondary sources fall into a number of categories - Armenian, Slavic, Armeno-Slavic and unknown/doesn't really matter.Urselius (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the article to reflect the uncertainty concerning Basil's ethic origins. I will try to flesh this out with more references concerning the competing claims. I note that his ethicity had about 4 references before my intervention whilst the rest of the text was and is almost entirely unreferenced.Urselius (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fine work Urselius and is much appreciated. Herostratus (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What about John?

How come this article makes no mention of the aforementioned person? Call yourself an encyclopedia? They lived in a same sex marriage too, that was endorsed by the Church! A reliable third-party source that is published is all that Wikipedia demands. But no mention of John here!! Why is that I wonder?? 109.156.28.156 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

John who? contemporary Byzantine names included descriptive or patronymic elements. The reference you cite gives insufficient detail to make a useful source.Urselius (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you have the temerity to suggest that a book by the University of Chicago does not, and I quote "make a useful source"? But wait a minute....a quick search and I find this about John. It's from Oxford University Press or is that another insufficiently detailed source? You "claim" to have a PhD, really? You're unguarded remarks regarding an esteemed publisher seems to reflect otherwise. John's relationship to Basil I reveals that Byzantine Christianity was quite happy to bless same-sex unions. But I was not going to add to the article before running it past the talk page first. I know "the game". Took me all of thirty seconds to find a second notable source mentioning "John". And why am I doing this? Because I just want to make a useful contribution. I am no self-styled expert with a PhD! 109.156.29.88 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read my message. I have nothing against the University of Chicago Press, What I said was "The reference you cite gives insufficient detail to make a useful source." Although the bona fides of the publisher is fine the amount of detail in the book about Basil I is insufficient - it mentions a man named John, there is no detail about him, there is no detail about his relationship to Basil I. There is no detail about the Church ceremony or the theology or usage behind whatever relationship between men that it refers to. Without another source it is too meagre an amount of information to be useful.Urselius (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have investigated the matter and it appears that the "marriage" is an interpretation by a couple of scholars of an otherwise ambiguous Church ceremony (adelphopoiesis) open to other interpretations. Feel free to add whatever you like on the subject, BUT be awrare that I will add caveats if you present this particular interpretation as "hard fact." Wikipedia does not condone ad hominem attacks. I have a PhD, and also a BSc and MPhil, if I didn't I would not claim such. If you wish to be taken seriously it would be advantageous for you to open an account on wikipedia as contributions by unregistered users are generally treated with a degree of suspicion.Urselius (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As a counter argument:

Robin Darling Young, after examining the texts adduced by Boswell to demonstrate that the Christian Church blessed same-sex unions during the Middle Ages, concludes that:

“neither Boswell’s reconstruction of them nor his methods of argumentation can possibly support the interpretation that he proposes: first, it is highly implausible that homosexual unions either in antiquity or in the Middle Ages would have been blessed by a religion that promoted ascetic devotion to the kingdom of God rather than that condition which contemporary Americans understand as a healthy expression of erotic drives... Furthermore, early Byzantine law codes [including the Basilica that Basil I promulgated] contain extremely harsh punishments for homosexual intercourse.”

The Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful By John Francis Harvey (1996), San Francisco, p. 243.Urselius (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50

Any historical evidences older than 1853?

What kind of historical page is that? The older historical evidence cited is from 1853 book. Again - what kind of historical page is that? An alternative history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.61.203 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Had to laugh at the illogicality of something old being invalid in history! Kyrie eleison!

Good historical scholarship does not have a shelf life. Unfortunately, the writing of narrative history has been out of fashion for many decades. If, as in the case of an encyclopaedic entry, the facts of historical events are more cogent than faddish interpretations of trends then older sources must be consulted, as, sadly, many modern works contain little in the way of narrative detail. The most recent work cited dates to 2007, but perhaps this is too recent for you?

BTW what particular axe are you grinding - Armenian nationalism or gay revisionism? Urselius (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

His native language was Armenian

According to the John Julius Norwich, the native language of Basil I was Armenian, whereas in Greek, he spoke with a strong accent. He wrote it in his book A Short History of Byzantium (page 214). However, I could not add the reference normally, but added the sentence in the article. Can someone help me in this situation. M.Karelin (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done. 46.71.160.102 (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

John Shea, psychologist a reliable source?

This source;

• Shea, J. (1997) Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, McFarland.
  

is by John Shea,[2] which appears to be, "Dr John Shea is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Newcastle where he has taught and conducted research for the past 23 years.". I do not see anything which would make Dr. Shea a reliable source in the area of Byzantine history.[3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the majority of the text of this article and I am trying to preserve it from the clutches of nationalists and cultural chauvinists. I could do so by removing all overtly nationalist additions - Basil was not born in Armenia, nor did he espouse Armenian nationalism, neither was he born in the Sclavinias, and he is not recorded as being a promoter of Slavic cultural identity - instead I allow anything that has a reasonable source whilst adding balancing information. John Shea wrote a book on a subject related to the article. This is all that is required to make him a referable source. He is at least an academic, John Julius Norwich - for whom I have some respect as a historian (with some reservations) - has no qualifications as an academic historian and could be classed as an amateur dilettante. I have no problem with Norwich being referred to. Urselius (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In short I will not sit by and have the information in the article distorted; therefore if a pro-Slavic assertion and source goes then the respective pro-Armenian assertion and source goes as well, and vice versa. Urselius (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"I wrote the majority of the text of this article and I am trying to preserve it from the clutches of nationalists and cultural chauvinists."

Then I would suggest using reliable sources, not psychologists to write Byzantine history, and lose the battleground mentality. I was quite clear why Shea is not a reliable source, which has nothing to do with the sentence the Shea source referenced.

"John Shea wrote a book on a subject related to the article. This is all that is required to make him a referable source. He is at least an academic, John Julius Norwich - for whom I have some respect as a historian (with some reservations) - has no qualifications as an academic historian and could be classed as an amateur dilettante."

John Shea, academic or not, is not an historian. And, since you admit to writing the majority of the text article then you should be checking your sources.

I see nothing in your response that convinces me that Shea has any qualifications in Byzantine history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would trust a history book written by a scientist over a scientific book written by a historian. But that is by the by. You have ignored all the rubbish written earlier on this talk page by people pushing nationalistic agendas, which is why the Shea sentence is included in the first place. I have attempted to, indeed walked over backwards, to reconcile these people when they come up with reasonable sources. However, your intervention has freed me, thank you. I will get rid of all the nationalistic stuff and leave the last and only word to the only English language historian to write a full biography of Basil. Urselius (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your perception of a battleground mentality, I would point out that etiquette on Wikipedia usually expects that someone proposing a change to an article on its talk page waits for some sort of response before putting the change into effect. Look to the beam in your eye before pointing out the mote in mine. Urselius (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Look to the beam in your eye before pointing out the mote in mine."

Considering your rant(3 lines) was about ethnicity/nationalism, and then you mention Shea, that speaks volumes about your intent. And, your re-addition of the Shea source under a false edit summary,[4] "Reverted recent changes to content that were not raised on the talk page". Care to explain why you removed the Bury and Charanis sources, since both are academic historians? If I were you I would avoid quaint little sayings and stick to using reliable sources.

"I would point out that etiquette on Wikipedia usually expects that someone proposing a change to an article on its talk page waits for some sort of response before putting the change into effect."

Not when removing a clearly unreliable source, when stated on the talk page. I'm sure "etiquette" would be to discuss why the source is or is not reliable, instead of starting off with 3 lines of a nationalistic/ethnic rant. Whereas you removed two reliable sources for what reason? It appears you do not have an understanding of what constitutes a reliable source.

"In short I will not sit by and have the information in the article distorted.."

How is "information" distorted when written by reliable sources? Compared to using a psychologist to push a particular POV? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

John Shea is a well-known pro-ethnic Macedonian hack, who publishes all kinds of fanciful and nonsensical cruft misusing the word "Macedonian". He has zero credentials as a historian, his only connection being that he is married to an ethnic Macedonian. His self-published publications are marked by intentional misuse and misunderstanding of the word "Macedonian", to push a well-known POV unsupported by historical research. He should never be used as a source. Athenean (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You accuse me of ranting, have you seen the crap I have had to put up with on the ethnicity of Basil? It can easily be seen on this talk page. No wonder I react strongly. Your reasoning is faulty. Let us look at Charles Darwin. He took a degree largely in Theology (with some Mathematics and Latin). The only employment he ever had was as a Geologist on the Beagle expedition. By your reasoning we should ignore anything Darwin ever wrote concerning Biology as he had no qualifications in the subject, neither was he ever employed in any academic post. I said why I removed all the nationalistic nonsense in my earlier post. I was far too lenient in allowing the additions in the first place, they are irrelevant in the light of the pronouncement of the biographer of Basil I, that his ethnic origins cannot be definitively stated. Byzantine by-names were self explanatory: Theophylact the Unbearable was unpleasant, Thomas the Slav, was a Slav, Leo the Armenian was an Armenian, the salient fact for the Byzantine populace about Basil was that he was from the Theme of Macedonia, his ethnic origins were, apparently, not of sufficient relevance to be noteworthy. The 'quaint little saying' was from a book called the Bible, you might have heard of it. Urselius (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And again, I see nothing that has to do with Shea being an unreliable source. IF the sentence(referenced by Shea) in question is of a subject matter that is academically accepted then clearly it would be stated somewhere by an academic historian, would it not?

"The 'quaint little saying' was from a book called the Bible, you might have heard of it."

To which, the relevance to this discussion is what? Some childish attempt to insinuate that I've never read the "Bible"? LMAO

I could care less what anyone's(live or dead) ethnicity is/was/should be/etc. I am only interested in articles being written using reliable source.

Still no answer why you removed two academic historians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did. Here it is again for you: "I was far too lenient in allowing the additions in the first place, they are irrelevant in the light of the pronouncement of the biographer of Basil I, that his ethnic origins cannot be definitively stated." There you have it, the stuff supported by "the two academic historians" is irrelevant, because no one knows Basil's ethnicity with any degree of certainty, and the material was introduced by people wishing to give the article an unbalanced viewpoint towards Basil having one particular ethnic origin. I don't think I can be any more explicit than this. I am less interested in having the article stuffed with references than I am with having the article reflect a balanced position and removing irrelevancies. Urselius (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear invited me here to give my opinion.

Frankly, I think the Norwich source (certainly) and the Shea source (probably) meet the base threshold of WP:RS. But just because something is in itself a reliable source does not mean that is reliable for everything in it. I don't think Shea's book qualifies as a reliable source on the ethnic origins of Basil I. Norwich is weak, too. There are better sources, like A. A. Vasiliev, "The Origin of Emperor Basil the Macedonian", Vizantiysky Vremennik, XII (1906), 148–65, which unfortunately is originally in Russian and I cannot access it. Or Nicholas Adontz, "L'Âge et l'origine de l'empereur Basil I", Byzantion, 8 (1933), 475–550, which I also cannot access. In fact, it is clear that Shea's source is Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453, vol. 1 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), p. 301. Vasiliev is definitely a reliable source for the claim being made. What does he say? He says that Greek sources call Basil either Armenian or Macedonian. Armenian sources call him Armenian and Arabic sources call him a Slav. It might be that Basil was from an Armenian family that had settled in Macedonia and intermarried with Slavs, who were numerous there. Perhaps he was "Armeno-Slavic" or a "Slavonised" Armenian, Vasiliev speculates. He says nothing about language, although I'd argue that "Slavonized" implies Slavic-speaking, without prejudice to the ability to speak Armenian. The Shea citation should be converted into a Vasiliev citation. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the whole lot should go. I have removed them for the reason that I have realised that allowing them room in the article is pointless. I had hoped to accommodate people wanting to push an ethnocentric agenda by finding balancing evidence. KB has shown me the error of this type of accommodation, as removing one balancing statement upsets the whole scheme, and ethnocentric point-scoring should just be removed when it appears. Urselius (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

KB invited me to comment too. To begin with: U comes across as very prickly/ OWN-y, and as not thinking clearly. I would trust a history book written by a scientist over a scientific book written by a historian is silly - we should in general prefer history books written by historians and science written by scientists, without good reasons otherwise. The comparison against Darwin is similarly silly. These are weak arguments that would only be made by someone without anything better to say.

The Shea book by its very title "The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation" clearly has the potential to be political, and thus not an RS for the issue under discussion. Further (although I haven't read the book and am therefore guessing) its hard to see it as a book of historical scholarship, and so the point at issue must be tangential to the Shea book; if the Shea book itself quotes more reliable sources, then use those instead; if it doesn't, then its not reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Really, the ursid seems to have many cronies. Don't call me silly, it is an ad hominem attack - I don't lower myself to address people who make such attacks, beyond pointing this out to them. Urselius (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cronies? Unless you are suggesting that I can read minds, I have no way of knowing the opinions of other editors concerning any sources in this article and was surprised by Athenean's response. And, FYI, calling other editors "cronies" is a personal attack. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, it merely suggests prior acquaintance. Admittedly, it also implies that I view the recruitment of others by yourself as a form of mobbing. Urselius (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@KB - You have behaved in a rather high-handed way throughout. I have put a good deal of hard work into this article and was trying to hold the line against repeated attempts to give it an ethnic bias and introduce fringe views on the Medieval Orthodox Church's attitude to sexuality. By upsetting the balance I had striven to form you convinced me that my approach had been wrong and that extraneous ethnic-bias motivated material should be removed. Then you objected to my removal of this material purely on the grounds that it has reasonable sources, with no thought to the tone or balance of the article itself. I am profoundly unhappy. Urselius (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Shea also gives credence to the idea that Alexander was of the same ethnicity as modern Macedonians. So should we open up that discussion as well? Obviously not. He's not a serious academic in the field. Anyone can publish a book.--Tataryn (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the discussion has moved on from Shea, he is irrelevant for current purposes.

Ethnicity of Basil and its relative importance

At present the article reads:

"Claims have been made for an Armenian,[1] Slavic,[3][4] or indeed "Armeno-Slavonic"[2] origin for Basil I. The author of the only dedicated biography of Basil I in English has concluded that it is impossible to be certain what the ethnic origins of the emperor were, though Basil was definitely reliant on the support of Armenians in prominent positions within the Byzantine Empire.[5] During his reign, an elaborate genealogy was produced that purported that his ancestors were not mere peasants, as everyone believed, but descendants of the Arsacid (Arshakuni) kings of Armenia and also of Constantine the Great.[6]"

I would propose that this is all that needs to be said concerning Basil's ethnicity, which cannot be proven beyond a considerable amount of doubt.

Did Basil's ethnicity substantially affect his life or his policies as emperor? I think the answer to this is an emphatic no. In contemporary Byzantine society ethnic origins were insignificant compared to religion, any origin was acceptable if the person was an Orthodox Christian. Basil's invented ancestry included a number of persons and dynasties of high repute at the time, the Arsacids were of Armenian, though ultimately of Parthian, origins, but the same cannot be said of Constantine the Great, who was of Roman provincial origins from the Illyrian region. Even if Basil's ancestry was as was claimed for him, he was obviously admitting a mixed origin anyway.

Basil's ethnicity is only of importance to people pushing nationalistic/ethnic agendas - be they Armenian nationalists, pan-slavicists, FYROM nationalists or whatever. I would submit that the present coverage of this subject, as quoted above, is quite adequate, and that the material removed, by myself and others, was extraneous. Urselius (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered this: Brubaker, Leslie (1999) Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Cambridge University Press, p, 161: Basil's mother claimed descent from not only Constantine the Great, but also Alexander. Obviously, Basil was not averse to acknowledging a very mixed, if exalted, ancestry. Considering the number of ethnicities in contemporary Byzantine Thrace people of mixed ethnic origin were probably numerous. Urselius (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to pop in remind you all that this was 1,300 years ago. It's probably not something to get overly emotionally invested in by now. Herostratus (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I have zero investment in Basil 1st's ethnicity, what I am invested in is not having this article distorted by nationalistic cockwombles pushing agendas. Urselius (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Father's name

The article appears to contradict itself -- first it says that "The name of his father is unknown", but later it talks about "his father Bardas, brother Marinos, and cousin Ayleon". --Zzedar (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, funny that. It must result from the input of multiple editors.

Armenian origin

why did everything revert? even I put sources? Looks like someone don't like that Basil was an Armenian

That is because he was not Armenian, he may have had partly Armenian ancestry, but that is not the same thing. Urselius (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

According to whom he was not an Armenian, as I see historians said that he was, I trust them moreTatul (talk)

1. John H. Rosser. Historical Dictionary of Byzantium. — 2-nd ed. — Scarecrow Press, 2011. — p.52 "Beginning in the sixth century, Armenians emigrated to Byzantium in great numbers, becoming the most assimilated of any ethnic group, while, at the same time, maintaining their distinct literature, religion, and art. Thousands of Armenian soldiers served in imperial forces, and a number of important military leaders and civil administrators were Armenian, including emperors Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I Lekapenos, and John I Tzimiskes."

2. Richard Barrie Dobson. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages p884 "was Armenian"

3. John Julius Norwich The History of Byzantium. - p. 214. "Basil I's native language was Armenian, while he spoke Greek with a strong accent"

4. The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire by Peter Charanis "Thus, the dynasty which Basil I founded was Armenian by descent. "

5. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages Edited by André Vauchez The Macedonian dynasty (867-1056) marked the apogee of the medieval Byzantine Empire. Its founder, Basil, a peasant born in Macedonia but of Armenian descent, claimed to be related to the"

6. Basil I, the Armenian (Emperor of Byzantium 867-886) by Nicholas Adontz Tatul (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You have just proved my point; most of the citations say he was of Armenian descent, just so, and even this is not a 'cast iron' certainty. He was not an Armenian, he was a Byzantine monarch, Basileus ton Rhomaion. As a paradigm, Alexander the Great's father was of Argolid descent and his mother was an Epirote. However, he was King of Macedon, and his Macedonian identity is what matters. He was Alexander of Macedon, not Alexander the Argolid or Alexander of Epirus. Urselius (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no" your "or" my " point of view, and there is no "iron confidence", as you said. Despite what people want, wikipedia is based on sources, reliable sources, and what people want or think doesn't matter. Returning to our conversation, there is no doubt that he was Armenian, here are 4 more sources (and thus there are 10 of them), Armenians lived in Byzantium and made a great contribution to the prosperity of this country, mentioning historical facts, that's all wikipedia needs, facts and reliable sources,

Wikipedia:Core content policies - Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research

As for the origin of Basil, he is an Armenian, it is pointless to dispute this, I will state this in the article.

Answering to you, for who he was, and what he wasn't, if that is published in historical books, it studied in universities, so it means that this is important.

1. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=aujh
2. http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Byzantium/Person/en/BasilI.html
3. https://www.medievalists.net/2019/06/from-peasant-to-byzantine-emperor-the-remarkable-career-of-basil-the-macedonian/
4. https://www.worldhistory.org/Basil_I/

Tatul (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"he was a Byzantine monarch" - he was a Byzantine emperor of Armenian origin. Thats the correct version. Tatul (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Tatul, please stop neglecting the Slavic and Greek versions of his origin and emphasizing the Armenian one. Jingiby (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not, I provided sources, reliable sources, it’s more than enough to prove. For the other version of his origin. The story is sucked out of the finger, there are scientific works in which it is clearly written in black and white that he is an Armenian, but one person is taken as the basis here, and although sources that clearly and without doubt say that he is an Armenian, it does not matter, it seems that someone simply does not like the version of his origin, it is logical when you have more reliable sources that say that it is true, and also on the other hand, a couple that don’t contradict them, logically you will choose more reliable information Tatul (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be merely a nationalistic troll, argument is wasted on you. Urselius (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to personal insults. Tatul (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. BTW, I can trace a line of descent from the Bagratids, but I am not an Armenian, neither was Basil I. Urselius (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer historians who have an academic degree, history cannot be changed because of what people want. Anyway don't undo my edit, since there is no reason, information provided by me is completely based on facts and sources. Tatul (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody denies his partial Armenian origin. Just keep the article to NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

denies this, moreover, the way of writing the text is manipulative, the edits I made should be saved, they do not reflect "my" point of view, I have cited indisputable sources and made the text unbiased. Partly or not partly, this is not someones decision, there are history and facts. The article cannot be manipulative and deny the sources. Thanks Tatul (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the historical importance of the ancestry of Basil I? Answer, negligible. Did his ancestry influence his life or rule as a monarch? Answer, not detectably. The Byzantines were very literal in their bestowal of nicknames and they were discerning about the background of people. Justinian II Slit-Nose, had a mutilated nose, Leo IV the Khazar, had a Khazar mother, Irene of Athens, was born in Athens, Leo V the Armenian, was Armenian. If Basil I had been noticeably Armenian, he would have been called 'Basil the Armenian', but he wasn't. The thing that his contemporaries noticed most about him and his origins was that he was a Byzantine provincial from the Theme of Macedonia. To override the views of contemporaries is both foolish and poor scholarship. Urselius (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I repeat once again, there is a history and it should be clear, your thoughts and desires, your personal preferences should not affect the readers. Everything else is irrelevant to the article, the edits I made are neutral, and also represent different authors, and not your personal choice, I don't think it's up to you to decide who was called what, once again, do not insult me

Tatul (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what is important in the story and what is not, it is up to the readers to decide, this article is based on what you want, which author you prefer, which point of view you like more. Tatul (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I find the current version to be balanced and NPOV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 September 2021

Could an admin link Constantine in the family section (one of the children of the first wife) to Constantine (son of Basil I)? Not very pressing but I'm planning on writing an article about him in the near future; he's one of the last formally declared heirs to not have an article, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as this page is no longer protected, it may be edited directly as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Basil's sexuality

I recently reverted additions to the article concerning Basil's alleged homosexuality and directed discussion on the topic here. I did so for a number of reasons: controversial additions to Wikipedia articles need to be discussed prior to their adoption, the addition seemed far too extensive for a subject that has little or no bearing on the historical relevance of Basil I, much of the evidence is based an a contemporary church rite that is not definitively understood, male homosexuality was not only anathema to the Byzantine church it was also illegal under Byzantine law, incurring harsh penalties, which was affirmed in the Basilica code of law published by Basil I himself. Urselius (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As the topic has had some published comment, though this has been refuted by other authors, I am not averse to some mention of the topic. However, any mention has to be hedged by the many objections that are evident and cannot be more than a couple of sentences at most, due to the marginal nature and lack of historical importance of the topic. Urselius (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As a historian of sexuality and emotions, I take strong issue with the idea that the question is not of historical importance. It is an important point for discussing homosexuality and attitudes toward it in pre-modern European history. And in Basil's case and in the case of Byzantine history, it is a topic relevant to his rise to power and Byzantine politics (or at least how Byzantine politics were understood in the primary historical sources) in general. Nor do I agree that it has been "refuted", insofar as one can refute a claim that can never be satisfactorily resolved, and certainly not by an extremely biased and ideological source like First Things.

But I will remove any reference to John Boswell and the historiographical controversy over same-sex or brotherly unions. I do believe it is essential to both mention Tougher's essay and include one of his mentions of the primary literature, however. Chadsdenton (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Boswell has been discredited on the accuracy of his interpretations of primary evidence concerning adelphopoeisis, so his reputation as a professional historian is probably too tarnished anyway. As to historical importance, we have far too little on the reign of Basil I (the really important section) to counterbalance all the trivialities of his possible ancestry, and now his possible sexual orientation. You seem fixated on 'First Things', but to care nothing for contemporary Byzantine law. I will add something on law as a counterbalance. The idea of discussing matters here is to thrash out wording prior to adding new material, not to make a statement and then unilateral additions to the article, by the way. Urselius (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice: IP user’s comment, I wonder if it’s still prudent to keep it, Urselius. Raulois (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The theory is sufficiently hedged with caveats that it should be retained, in my opinion. The paper referred to exists and its author is a bona fide academic. Urselius (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thekla

Would it be appropriate to add a mention that, around the same time Basil married Eudokia, Michael III also offered him his sister Thekla as lover or is this a trivial detail? Sira Aspera (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)