Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Can we fix the "Nomenclature" section?

The following section has been completely garbled for the last few months. Can this be cleaned up?

The City of Constantinople (previously "Byzantium") and some monastic communities as early as the 7th century were called Byzantine in Greek sources but never for the state in a political sense.[ref] It was used more broadly after the empire's collapse by German Hieronymus Wolf's Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a book published by Anton Fugger.[ref] Wolf was a humanist who wanted to differentiate medieval Greek authors from ancient Greek authors.[ref] According to Anthony Kaldellis Athenian historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles, an author included in Wolf's 1562 edition, in the mid-15th century advocated a neo-Hellenic identity of the Romans and was the first to use the term in this way.[ref] The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), and Du Cange's Historia Byzantina in 1680 further popularised the use of "Byzantine" among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[ref] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in America, England and elsewhere in Europe with George Finlay's 1857 book greatly advancing it as it was the first English modern narrative to use the term[ref] Kaldellis claims the politics of the Crimean War, which included Greece's Megali Idea, is what fanned the change from the 8th century's "Empire of the Greeks" with the modern convention of "Byzantine Empire"[ref]

Come on folks, this is a Featured Article, we really shouldn't have ungrammatical gibberish like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It needs shortening too. Apart from poor writing, whoever did that also tied themselves in knots trying to cover too much. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran this text via Grammarly, and the grammar and writing are pretty good. Not a human, of course, but I guess that's the point. What's the ungrammatical gibberish that irks you?

As for conciseness, it depends on what we want to emphasise, and we can move the rest to a note. This paragraph's two axes are how Hieronymus Wolf invented it but it's now proven it was Laonikos Chalkokondyles (as in, who invented the term to refer to it as a state), and George Finlay, who popularised it in English. The first sentence and Kaldellis's work are the most recent scholarship I've encountered. Biz (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Biz, watch you don't change URLs when you run a tool like that - I think the ones in your edit are okay with the caps but IME some sites are less forgiving. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I get the impression that Grammarly's mostly trained on business emails etc and that text of this complexity is a bit beyond it. Anyway, here are the aspects that feel ungrammatical or 'off' to me:

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea").
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ..."

Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. I'm not sure we care about Fugger. It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. Furius (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestions. (Though most of these are style, no grammar.) Strike through means it's been implemented in the latest edit, otherwise with comments responding

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea"). --> Changed it to "and Greece's Megali Idea"
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ...
• "Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. --> It is but that's because relatively recent scholarly work that has challenged this. So it's a question of if we are ready to just accept the recent as well established and accepted or wait longer. If you read the note, it explain it. It is as follows: "Wolf has long been considered one of the founders of Byzantine studies in early modern Europe. However, Asaph Ben-Tov has recently argued that he likely did not come up with this title as he did not otherwise use it or discuss it in the preface. Anthony Kaldellis believes more research will confirm the term was already being used in Western medieval sources and Wolf only reluctantly used it on the orders of Anton Fugger."
• I'm not sure we care about Fugger. --> Refer to the above note
• It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. --> The reference included a quote. If you read the full paper it is better explained. I did a lot of work on the Greece-Ottoman relations article so it's obvious to me but I appreciate it's not to others so open to other ideas of rewriting this. As for the note, it is as follows: "The Crimean War had a profound—and unrecognized—impact by forging a new distinction between "Byzantine/Byzantium" and "Greek/Greece," in a context in which the "Empire of the Greeks" had become a politically toxic concept to the Great Powers of Europe. In response, European intellectuals increasingly began to lean on the conceptually adjacent and neutral term Byzantium in order to create a semantic bulwark between the acceptable national aspirations of the new Greek state, on the one hand, and its dangerous imperial fantasies and its (perceived) Russian patrons, on the other."

Biz (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect you are right, but tldr for Sunday night. One thing I'm sure of is that the section, given its inordinate length, is far too high up the section order. It should be below the history, and probably other sections. Very few of our readers will bwe looking for this. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

TL;DR I believe historiography should come first for any article on history.

It's complex politics masquerading as convenience why we call this era of Roman history a different name. Which is why it belongs at the top. That said, I do agree we should make it more concise.

For a first time reader of this history, it's framing perception a certain way and there is responsibility in doing that appropriately. For someone with an understanding of the history, it's expected this is explained well and prominently as it's an open secret this is a rebranding done by historians for reasons no one really understands. For someone who deeply understands the subject, presenting the latest scholarly evidence puts us ahead of any other resource and boosts Wikipedia's credibility.

Burying it goes against all three of these points. Biz (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonbod. It's tangential, almost a footnote, to the point of this article. Currently, it reads like a form of WP:FANCRUFT. It needs to be shortened to a few lines andcertainly put after the history section. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I read the first sentence of your re-write (tldr for the rest). "City" should not have a capital 'C'. "were called Byzantine" - no, it's an adjective. ("referred to as"/"described as" etc. Source uses "indicates a direct relation with"). Sentence is comma-less. DeCausa (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Some notes:

• The recent copyedit [1] didn't solve the grammatical reference problem – "it" still has no proper antecedent.
• The fact that the first sentence so easily loses sight of what its grammatical subject is, seems related to the fact that the whole section loses sight of what its topic is. A "nomenclature" section should answer the question "what names have been used for this empire". What the section does instead is discussing the question "where does name X come from". That's not the same thing. This distorted focus is clearly due to the fact that it's just this name that has attracted so much ideological obsession from certain Wikipedia editors, but it's out of proportion with the actual importance of the issue. The section needs to be not only shortened, but more generally be put into proper context.
• I agree about the points above regarding temporal ordering, the role of Fugger, etc. Fugger is irrelevant as long as we aren't actually making the point that some authors have suggested it was him who prompted the use of the term. But we aren't making that point, and won't be making it, because it's little more than speculation. That claim is now in a footnote, which is bad. I'm sure I've said this before: encyclopedia articles should never use explanative footnotes in the sense of "learned digressions" in the way some academic papers might do. In an encyclopedia, either something is important enough to be explained in the main text, or it isn't important at all and should be left out.
• The same thing about footnotes goes for the other "note" items splattered throughout the section, and for the statement about the "politics of the Crimean War" - the alleged relevance of the Crimean War remains completely opaque and unexplained within the main text and only becomes understood if you include the lengthy quote in the footnote.
• Going back to Wolf/Fugger etc., if the claim in the footnote is true that Wolf didn't "use or discuss" the term "B." in his Corpus, i.e. he used it only in its title, then the statement that it was "used more broadly" by him is patently false and needs to be reworded.
• Finally, the statement about "some monastic communities" in the first sentence makes no sense. This is a remarkably uninsightful summarizing of the source cited. What Kaldellis is actually explaining in that paper is that the term "Byzantine" might have been occasionally/rarely used in a cultural/political sense denoting an Eastern Roman as opposed to West Roman identity – the "monastic communities" are merely the example that happens to occur in the quotation he uses to illustrate this claim.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I made another revision. Responses below.

1. Ok. "It" is discussed again below.
2. That makes sense.
3. I've take Fugger out. And the footnote.
4. I've rewritten this sentence and removed this additional context. If the reader wants to read the reference, I've left the footnote which expands on it.
5. Agreed.
6. The paper by Theodoropoulos is not cited by Kaldellis as it was written after his paper initial claims in a different book and Theodoropoulos is responding specifically to Kaldellis's claim with evidence it was used long before in other contexts. The core argument of Kaldellis is that it was Western European's who were dealing with the Eastern question and the Great Game (my words not his). That said, I agree there is no need to give this so much airtime even though you mistake this as a summation of Kaldellis. I recommend reading Kaldellis's paper in full.

Biz (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't gone past the first sentence again. The erroneous capital C remains and "Although Byzantine was used for the City..., it would first be used for the state...". Come on! It's an adjective - talk about it as an adjective. That's just a horrible sentence. DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The one thing – the one essential piece of encyclopedic information – a section headed "nomenclature" in this article absolutely must explicitly say is that the word "Byzantine" is derived from the original urban settlement of Byzantium/Byzantion. It doesn't say it. The absolute fundamental piece of information the general reader should be given is absent. Instead, we have WP:FANCRUFT. DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Biz (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What "peanut gallery"? Explain. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Add: “…when its capital city was Constantinople. ‘Prior to that, the city of Constantinople had been called Byzantium, after which the empire was named, heralding the Ancient Greek tradition of the city.’ It survived the fall…” Aniskyr (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lightning speed gif

the map gif is once again too fast, we gotta slow it down Jake the brain (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, each slide is now visible for 1.5 seconds, let me know if its still too fast. NeimWiki (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you it works Jake the brain (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Hello, I am reading the page on the Byzantine Empire and I have a suggestion: The page should be renamed as the Eastern Roman Empire and the first sentence should be reformated as ”The Eastern Roman Empire, also referred to as the Byzantine Empire, was the official continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.”

I believe this edit is necessary because the term ’Byzantine Empire’ was invented by western scholars over 100 years AFTER the Fall of Constantinople and, as such, was never once used to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire at any point during it’s rule. The so-called ’Byzantines’ consistently and near-exclusively called themselves Romans, both before and after they adopted Greek as the principal state language in the 7th century. Even the capital city of Constantinople was officialy designated as Nova Roma, which literally translates to ’New Rome’ in Latin, by Emperor Constantine the Great, the first emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire himself. During this time, the city was also called the 'Second Rome', 'Eastern Rome', and Roma Constantinopolitana (Latin for 'Constantinopolitan Rome').

The scholars who created the term ’Byzantine Empire’ did so with the deliberate intent to distinguish the Eastern Roman Empire from the Roman Empire itself, in order to either discredit or to provide more legitimacy to one of the many countries who each claimed themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire (Such as the Tsardom of Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc).

They were largely unsuccessful in the latter part, but they were succesful in perpetrating a historical myth which persists today. And I believe that the offical Wikipedia page’s name, although not entirely incorrect, is only further enforcing that myth by using a term that was invented over a century after it’s fall to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire.

By using the term ’Byzantine Empire’ instead of the official name of the Eastern Roman Empire, it forces the reader to view the Eastern Roman Empire as completely separate from the entire history of the Roman Empire itself. I, and many others from what I’ve seen, believe that that is not just a blatant falsification of history, but also an uneducated myth which has embedded itself in the narrative of modern education, as well as being an insult to the legacy of the Roman Empire as a whole. Omnistar763 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can believe it, this is something editors have been fighting about for this page for twenty years: there are many pages of discussion on "Eastern Roman" versus "Byzantine" in the archives of this talk page. I would personally much prefer the former, to be clear, but I prefer peace and precision, especially with very mature articles like these that nonetheless presently need a lot of help. Remsense聊 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately on this, two wrongs make a right, even though in one example the citizens of Lemnos were still calling themselves Roman up to 1912, Anthony Kaldellis commented on it, saying "Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history finally absorbed and ended", as it was the point when the Hellenic Navy had freed the island from the Turk occupation, and the people would now become Hellenic themselves.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice

As part of the ongoing FAR, I will be substantially reducing the rather bloated history section (currently around 10,000 words); per WP:Summary style, most of the intricate information/excessive detail is already at History of the Byzantine Empire and not required in this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality addition

@Biz:, this edit is too poor quality to be left in:

1. The first sentence: going back to the 6th century BC is utterly unnecessary and too remote for this article. Why italicise "Rome"? That's a breach of the MOS as well as being meaningless.
2. The second sentence: so what? What's it got to do with this article?
3. The third sentence is nonsense. There was no "fusion" of cultures and certainly not language - and the sources don't say that. There were loans and influence. not fusion.
4. The above irrelevancies replaced what was an explanation of how Rome came to rule the Byzantine core: "The Roman Republic established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC; nevertheless, internal instabilities led to the institution of the Roman Empire." There was, in your version, no reference to Rome acquiring the East: you left behind an unexplained non-sequitur as a result: "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east". No prior mention of conquer. So, Latin was "fused" with greek because of Magna Graecia - the Greek east and its conquest by Rome was utterly irrelevant to Byzantine history was it? Nonsense.

I've reverted. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

1. The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date because it's a continuation and it's an invention by historians. This is an article, like all articles, that needs to be standalone given context to a subject. Not mentioning that it started as Rome, even if it's just a sentence, in background, is not exactly "utterly unnecessary". The italisation of Rome is because the term "Rome" refers to the state. Mary Beard in SPQR uses it like this (and yes, to refer to the Byzantine Empire)

2. The second sentence is based on the latest scholarship. Which it references. And which it appears you have not read in depth based on your summation. I put it in because of how the second paragraph talks about "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east" -- there is now evidence that this happened even earlier before and to a bigger extent. I mentioned this in my edit summary but it comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Transition_from_Republic_to_Empire. I was trying to align the pages as there is no reason for them different in some areas.

3. "Fusion" is putting it into my words because that's what we are meant to do, right?. The sources talk about how Greek and Latin evolved together (not just words); how Greek culture started Latin literature; and how Magna Gracia greatly influenced Rome.

4. I accept there needs to be more explanation of the conquest. I was planning on doing more edits and adding more scholarship. But I was also trying to simplify it -- do we need a blow by blow explanation or can we just say it expanded across the mediterrean? Also the first sentence talks about expansion outside of the Italian peninsula.

I want to just improve the article, help keep its featured article status, and not waste time here in Talk. I tagged you on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 but you did not say anything. I find your practice of reverting my edits not helpful to this process.

cc: This is what makes me hesitate from working directly on this article @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense Biz (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewriting tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

What you wrote, Biz, was irretrievable:

1. "The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date". A statement of the obvious which has zero bearing on starting with the 6th century BC. This just seems to be a rather crass way of repeating the whole Byzantine Empire = Roman empire obsession. This article absolutely does not need to be standalone. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is fundamental to the Wikipedia concept. Yes, obviously, there is a huge blurring of when Roman historiography becomes Byzantine historiography. But it's not in the 6th century BC.
2. So what? It's just irrelevant here.
3. No. You are not meant to make up words that are misleading. Look up the dictionary definition of "fusion" if you really have to. It's obviously not the right word. The central point is that you've been WP:UNDUE on the influence of Magna Graecia v the hellenistic east or even the Greek core.
4. You made no improvement. It wasn't very good in the first place but you made it worse. What can I say? If that section is to be improved thaen what was there before your edit is a better starting point.

I reverted you because your edit was irretrievable. That whole section is unnecessarily bloated. there's some succinct points that could be made, but none of them involve the 6th century BC, Magna Graecia or the fusion of Latin and Greek. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these points are unwarranted in some form: however, you do not need to make them in a tone which one would use to scold a misbehaving pet. We are presently attempting to save this article from being delisted, and it will be a learning experience that requires cooperation. If I'm not out of bounds, please be a bit more patient with issues you see. Remsense留 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've seen too many poor quality edits from this editor over the last couple of years to have that level of patience. Also, I don't accept that this article should be "saved" from de-listing. It's a country mile from being an FA and I see no reasonable prospect of it being a decent article - it's been a target of some rather crass internet-based POVs for many many years. It should be de-listed. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say a concerted FAR process is the best chance for it to be considerably improved, even if it ultimately fails? Remsense留 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase that's been in the political headlines here in the UK over the last few days: that would be a "a triumph of hope over experience". DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your perspective is well taken, you may be right. As you are likely aware, I lack the experience you do: as such, I will be trying to improve this article the best I can while it's got several other editors engaged. It would be cynical to characterize this as "learning the hard way"—I'm happy to attain experience either way, even if it's experience to induce pessimism. Remsense留 23:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your experience! It's a British(?) idiom meaning that some let optimism override realism. DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Aye—I wasn't taking your it as any slight on my optimism; I just wanted to make it clear that I see where you're coming from the best I can, having the comparatively little experience with big wikiprojects that I do. Anyway—back to trying to trim the History section. Remsense留 00:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. You can choose to make this a productive discussion @DeCausa or given your history, not. I hope you agree this article needs more than just reducing its word count to save it.

In this "early history" section:

1. There needs to be a sentence how it all started. It wasn't in a vacuum.

2. There needs to be an explanation how the Republic became an Empire. Having an emperor did not make it an empire, according to the sources.

3. There needs to be an explanation how Greek language took over this Latin-speaking Roman Empire, or rather at least an insight into the origin that gets expanded on later. It was in the DNA of the Roman Empire, according to the sources.

4. There needs to be an explanation of how Christianity took over the pagan Roman Empire. The sources suggest long before Constantine came about.

I believe those four components give the necessary background to what became the Byzantine Empire in the "history" section that does not resort to a blow-by-blow description and can explain things more thematically. Less words, higher quality. The loss of the western Roman Empire is important for the early history, as is the move of the capital, but not necessary for "background".

There also needs to be recent scholarship to give this section credibility. What I added that I believe deserves inclusion:

• Dickey: new research that talks about how Latin words were incorporated into Greek from the days of the Roman Kingdom and indisputably from the start of the Republic and not just the 3rd century CE which was the current understanding and opens up a whole new perception of how Greek was used
• Rochette: who talks about how Magna Gracia had a huge influence, how Greek was a main language of the Republic and early Empire
• Batstone: how the Romans "translated" the Greek culture and made it their own
• Beard (who along with Kaldellis that I am reading right now), give us the most recent academic scholarship and is the of the highest grade of sources per WP:HISTRS

I am open to how we write this. If we can start with the key points and useful sources, this can be a way that we can have a more productive FAR that we can collaborate on. If not, then we should accept the vote to FARC that occurred before they pulled me in. Biz (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can tell that you are reading Kaldellis, you seem to hint at his work and academic formula almost inherently in every discussion of this type. You omit previous observations of his work and are now formulating a specific narrative to rewrite the story again, introducing his very specific point of view as an example, guide even.

I hope you are aware that your continued insinuations to rewrite a history compatible with an implicitly biased narrative using the pretext of "recent historical sources" (being quite generous with their acceptance in the academic field) are not the concern of a limited group of editors. Pablo1355 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Now that you’ve got that off your chest, would you like to attempt to address what I’ve asked which is (a) key points needed for background and early history (b) sources that are recent, scholarly and/or that we should consider for a rewrite required for this FAR? Biz (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about your problematic handling of information conceived regarding Byzantinism in general. I do not share your reasons or concerns for said edition and I do not intend to collaborate where I consider there is a pattern of implicit intentions conveniently omitted, I only want to reaffirm a previously declared position in the face of a similar situation in the hope that it can finally cease. Pablo1355 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaffirming that you have nothing useful to contribute towards consensus. When you do, your constructive ideas on how to improve the article or sources to include will be most welcome. Until you do, I ask you to respectfully disengage. Biz (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Biz, yes that's your regular message: anyone who doesn't accept your narrow, WP:UNDUE agenda and poor writing should disengage. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's all calm down! Biz, I didn't think much of your changes, let's see what a new attempt looks like. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Magna Gracia and citizenship

@DeCausa reverted this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Empire&diff=1189592161&oldid=1189583605. I would like to explain my reasoning.

• Magna Gracia was a conquest at a similar time as the Hellenistic states so fits the existing sentence as they are all Greek city-states
• Rochette (2018) talks about how Magna Gracia ultimately influenced the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire's language and culture in the west. This compliments the point about how Greek was spoken in the east. They both tie to the larger point of how the Byzantine Empire became Greek speaking.
• Beard (2015) and Kaldellis (2023) both regard 212 as a epoc making moment for the Roman Empire. Beard says it was a different empire in all but name. Kaldellis believes this is when we start seeing the standardisation of belief systems that led to Christianity. Mentioning this is very relevant given we are talking about the periodisation of the Roman Empire and necessary background for the Byzantine Empire's "formation" (if I can call it that).

Have other people read the sources and come with a different opinion? Biz (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was Greek-speaking because it was based on the Hellenistic east. The influence of Magna Graecia on the early Roman Republic is at best a tenuous link and is certainly WP:UNDUE in comparison. To put it bluntly: the Byzantine Empire was not Greek speaking because of Magna Graecia. As far as the Edict of Caracalla is concerned, it's covered in the Roman Empire article which is the right place for it, not here. Otherwise, why stop there at shoehorning in pre-Byzantine Roman history into this article? DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was Greek speaking largely, but not entirely, because it was based in the Hellenistic east. Speaking in absolutes like that requires many sources.

The point I'm try to modify is that Greek language and culture was already well adopted in the Roman Empire, west and east. For different reasons. But let's get back to the edit because that's not what this is meant to be about.

What I wrote in the edit: "The empire was greatly influenced by Magna Graecia and the Hellenistic states".

• Batstone talks about how Greek shaped Roman identity, "turning Greek achievements into Roman possessions."
• The conquest of Magna Gracia brought an influx of educated slaves that led to everyone speaking Greek. A slave (Livius) as part of this started latin literature, by copying Greek plays. He adopted the Greek epic meter into the Latin Saturnian which in itself Batstone says the consensus is this was influenced in the 6th century by the Greeks. The Greek hexameter was brought into Latin language, etc
• Rochette (2018) talks about how it was the high cultural position of the Greek language that Hellenized the Romans.

I don't believe this minor inclusion in the context of Greek city states being conquered is WP:UNDUE.

Regarding citizenship

• Kaldellis who is a leading Byzantine scholar mentions it, as when the Roman Empire became a world.
• Beard, who is a leading Ancient Rome scholar, mentions it as when the classical Roman empire effectively ends, or at least when it changes to something else
• We are writing about a periodisation of Roman civilization and both these scholars identify with it being impactful.
• Knowing how the Romans used citizenship to build their empire, and then knowing two-thirds became citizens suddenly, gives the reader a lot more context on how a structural shift happened and into what we now call the Byzantine Empire.

Further, Kadellis points to 212 a turning point in the sense of where the idea of a pan-Roman religion of Empire started developing. He points out how Decius in 249 required all citizens to make a public sacrifice which in itself was not novel but post 212 was unprecedented. The certificate of compliance he required basically mobilised the imperial bureaucracy to enforce religious conformity.

We have many other facts in there that is "shoehorning in pre-Byzantine Roman history" like Pax Romana, Crisis of the Third Century, Aurelian, etc. Also weak on justification with the sources.

I believe this is more relevant for "background" than Pax Romana and the third century that currently are in the article shoehorning. Biz (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Map

Putting this here to remind myself to make a proper map to replace File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg. If anyone else has any comments on graphics that should stay, go, or possibly be remade, put them here! Remsense留 05:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Odd source

Can someone explain what's going on with the formatting of the Donald M. Nicol "The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453" source? I've never seen #if: code used in a sources section before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So! Yes—before we started working on it, it was its own template: {{The Last Centuries of Byzantium}}, which transcludes the code you see. I think it's because the book is available only regionally, so it tries to offer different sources based on which are available. Which is freaky and probably wrong, but I didn't want to deal with it while I was formatting the bibliography, so I just substituted it for the time being. Remsense留 07:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I can ping @Cplakidas, who can further advise. Remsense留 07:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the conditional coding from the ref; this was template wiring that should not have carried over into this page when it was substed. The conditions were for choosing between two editions; I've gone for the second edition of 1993, since the Harvard references pointing to it were also calling it "Nicol 1993". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside, if anyone's wondering why sources are being regularly removed, it's because this article really suffers from journal articles/books being cited once or very few times to support a single fact or facet. Not only does this encourage bloating, but it also makes it harder to assess WP:WEIGHT. Rewriting using only half a dozen authoritative sources, as we're currently doing, is a much better way to ensure the article isn't disproportionately focused on certain aspects. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an enormous bibliography on this article that seems much more for looks than actually helping one do further research on the topic, indeed. Remsense留 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Airship's rewrite

Well, I've begun my rewrite of the history section. As you can see, I'm currently using entries in the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, combined with Treadgold 1997 and Kaldellis 2023, because all three have chronological political narrative (when we reach the Justinian dynasty, I'll be able to use the Cambridge History too); Byzantine World 2010 is thematically organised.

At the moment, I'm focusing on concise prose and replacement of outdated/somewhat tangential sources (why were we using a 1922 book by H. G. Wells as the basis for a lot of the early history section?), but as we go on I anticipate moving a lot of detail on art/administration/literature/religion/Constantinople out of the history section and into their own subsections. Similarly, I think the debated content above could be placed in the Language/Society sections, as not directly political/narrative history related.

Hope the above works for everyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can help in moving the non-history-detail out of the section (apparently we don't have a society section. why don't we have a society section??) that would be much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I will take a crack at this task. Remsense留 04:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense. I'm thinking of sections like "Transition into an eastern Christian empire", where the philosophy/architecture should be dealt with more fully in their own subsections (feel free to create them if needed) and similar for the detail in the "12th-century Renaissance" section. See Roman Empire for a near-equivalent article—the "History" section is trimmed of any unnecessary fluff, and details of literature/religion/administrative reforms get their own section. If it's really important (Komnenian restoration, Byzantine iconoclasm, etc.) I'll include a sentence in the history section anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the additional roadmap! will be useful for me. Remsense留 04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice start. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: about your new intro paragraph about periodization at the top of the history section: I'm fine with that addition, but I'd recommend rewording slightly, avoiding phrases such as "when the Byzantine Empire came into existence" or "the foundation of the Byzantine Empire". These may still be perceived as implying that there was such a thing as a "foundation" moment or a "coming into existence" (even if we don't know when it was). As we all know, the reason we don't have a clear cutoff point is not just because the general historical periods of antiquity "overlap", but because there was a continuity of existence of the empire itself. So I'd go with phrases more like "there is no general consensus about a precise cutoff date" or something like that.

About your rewrite of the "early history" section: I'm not quite sure it's wise to start with Augustus as the "foundation of the Roman Empire" at this point. Among the few good things about the previous versions was the fact that they started (very briefly) with how the territories that were later to become Byzantium came to be conquered by Rome. But that makes it necessary to start from a good deal earlier than Augustus. For purposes of this background exposition, the relevant concept of "Roman empire" is actually not the concept of "empire"="polity headed by an emperor", but the other one, of "empire"="polity governing vast conquered lands". (I think it was this point that Elias was, ever so clumsily, trying to insert into the paragraph earlier.) It was the "Roman empire" in this second sense that had conquered the East and laid the foundations for the cultural east-west divisions within itself. In this context, the change from republican to autocratic government is not really of prime significance at this point of the narrative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks for your comments. The first paragraph is a really good point, and I shall incorporate it in. The second: I do actually agree with you, which is why I initially wrote those two paragraphs back in November. However, of the major sources, only Treadgold goes back that far, and I didn't really want paragraphs based on one author; I can have a go at summarizing the detail you outline above into a sentence or two, but for the WP:DUE concerns I'm reluctant to add more. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it would have to be more than one sentence similar to what we had ("Rome established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC"), and then one sentence or two somehow introducing the cultural division of Latin west and Greek east within the empire, that being the foundation for the later development of the Byzantine half. Of course we already have something like that up in the lead section, so we may want to consider how to keep duplication to the legitimate minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, I am unsure what you mean in the edit summary to this revision: Err? It's the same content as you reverted to but without reference to Augustus???

The cited source (Greatrez 2008) states "From the reign of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) onwards the whole Roman Empire fell under the rule of one man."

Your revised sentences of "In the latter stages of this period, the republic entered a period of constitutional crisis, out of which ultimately emerged a monarchical form of government under an emperor" are thus unsupported by the cited sources, which do not mention a constitutional crisis or a monarchical form of government.

As above, my reasoning is that if information is not mentioned in the Oxford Handbook, Treadgold 1997 or Kaldellis 2023, it is likely to be WP:UNDUE in a featured article's history section. As I said in the previous edit summary, if you do find a recent treatment of Byzantine history which describes the transition from Roman republic to empire in detail, it can certainly be added. Otherwise, for WP:WEIGHT reasons, it might be best to exclude superfluous details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So, to be clear, are saying that it's WP:UNDUE to state that Augustus's one person rule emerged out of the Crisis of the Roman Republic? DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, seeing as none of the full-length RS I have consulted have seen it necessary to mention, I do think it is DeCausa. I am not saying this in an effort to push an agenda or anything—I'm a historian of the Mongol empire, this is just an interesting diversion—but if I don't see it in WP:RS which address the entirety of Byzantine history, I don't think it should be included. If you do find such sources, that would be helpful. I'll leave this for others to weigh in, and start updating the Justinian dynasty section. My only goal is getting this article to a state where it is worthy of the bronze star. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced it down and taken it out. It's rather pedantic and it's WP:BLUE that that was how the Principate came about ... but I've taken it out anyway as I think this section should be cut down to the bare minimum anyway. The only point the needs to be noted is that by the time the Byzantine empire comes along the form of government was rule of the emperor and not a Republic (as the Republic was mentioned). the point I was making is that emphasising Augustus in that way is dated and inaccurate. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of this “history” narration, I support fact inclusion or exclusion if it is (or not) covered by Kaldellis or Treadgold in their narrative history. They are the only people who have written an academic narrative of the entire history in the last 30 years so we should try to match them. Biz (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why collections such as the Oxford Handbook (2008), Cambridge History (2009), or Oxford History (2002) shouldn't also be included. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question is if we value a single author narrative as having unique value. I figure spending 5+ years on a complete narrative you would make hard decisions on what to include as relevant, more so than a chapter author.

To be clear, I’m speaking only to the specific issue of how to decide what facts actually matter. But to your point, WP:HISTRS doesn’t make this distinction. Biz (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS is an essay and doesn't really mean anything. Personally, I think single author narratives have to be looked at more closely than general compendiums, but that's just me. I'm going to continue using the five works above as the standard yardstick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting critique of Treadgold. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1357541?seq=1 by Walter Kaegi. He calls the narrative dangerous. Biz (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no succeeded section that includes Roman Empire was succeeded by the Ottoman Empire?

There is no succeeded panel in the info box, Ottoman Empire literally succeeded the Roman Empire. I want it to be added. 78.175.48.122 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We decided to remove this recently. Refer to Talk:Byzantine Empire#Succeeded by the Ottomans? Biz (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason of removing that section was silly. It all started with the question: "The succeeded panel in the info box, seems generally wrong in claiming Byzantium was succeeded by the Ottomans, were there any other successors to Byzantine?".
And after a long discussion, it ended up with a statement: "Yes, it would probably be better without; it adds little except confusion, and it will not be readily improved in a way that does not generate yet more confusion."
But they had no doubt to add as many successors as possible into Ottoman Empire infobox, or let that section exists to this day. ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Western Roman Empire also a lot of successors listed, so I think it should be added, but not with just the Ottomans as successors. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ottomans are not showing as successors on the actual article. We want to reduce where we can what is in the info box as people constantly change it. On this same logic, we should reduce what is on Western Roman Empire.

Specifically, successors are fraught with issues: on what basis? Language, religion, geography? The Rum Millet is about as close as it gets to a successor for the people of the empire but that just opens up another can of worms. The politicisation of successor states makes this just a headache we don't need. Biz (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Listing successor states is useful for people researching the history of a region and what comes next in the chronology. We should try to list all geographic successors, and if the Byzantines reconquer a region and then are reconquered again by a different polity (eg First and Second Bulgarian Empire) then both successors should be listed. If you want to keep the list concise then you should only list the most influential and historically important (more than 1 though). It should only list independent polities (so not the Rum Millet as they are included within the Ottoman Empire).

If you still think those shouldn't be listed at least list the legal successors (although the right of conquest was a thing then), like the Despotate of the Morea, Empire of Trebizond, and Principality of Theodoro.

Also the Roman Empire should be listed as a predecessor as that page lists the Byzantine Empire (under the name Eastern Roman Empire) as a successor. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't of a region, it's of a multiregional polity that evolved over millennia. The outline you are suggesting is far too broad and unwieldy for an infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the easily summarizable, important information contained within the article body, and what an infobox is actually capable of accurately presenting well has been the subject of much reevaluation over the past few years. Much of the issue is we are trying to cram highly complex, arguably synthetic topics (e.g. "predecessor" and "successor" states) into a visual presentation. I would argue aspects like these just far too complicated for this presentation to be either accurate or specific enough. Remsense留 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're doing research, I would recommend reading the article, not just the infobox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the article would be less bad with a name change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If people are going to persist with this fantasy name for a big chunk of the Roman Empire, then a more educational informative title would seem better, such as 'Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire)'. It might stop a lot of people who have yet to gain the knowledge, who would maybe unintentionally ignore the article because the word Roman is not there, from not ignoring the article. Middle More Rider (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me count the ways:

1. The use of a parenthetical disambiguator is usually to be avoided when possible, and I can't think of a worse case than here.
2. You say the article would be less bad, and then you say it is 'unintentionally ignored'. Which is the problem, exactly?
3. Believe it or not, the article name has been discussed before, check the top of this page.

Remsense留 02:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a well known fact that no one reads articles unless they contain the word "Roman". Can you imagine how many people would click on Spanish Empire if it was titled "Spanish Empire (Not Roman Empire)"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to follow the sources. What the professionals use first as our opinions go last.

Kaldellis is the one challenging the convention of the last century (ie, when "Byzantine" replaced empire of the Greeks) and he tends to oscillate between "east Roman" and Ῥωμανία" ("Romanía" or Romanland) which is what they called themselves from the 4th century. There is no scholarly consensus that this is the best solution, despite an acknowledgement that the term Byzantine is problematic by the profession. Biz (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. "Byzantine" is a near universal convention. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Info box + Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων

A recent edit, appropriately reverted, has me question two things

(1) Do we need to have the infobox title repeat the article name and lead sentence in English? If we can just remove the English, and keep the Latin and Greek, it's one less thing people will constantly want to change.

(2) The editor changed the Greek to Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία. We currently have it as Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. I'll admit, I don't actually know what is correct so not saying what is, but I found this 2007 paper that elucidates what the sources say https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26609804_Some_Questions_Concerning_the_Terminology_used_in_Narrative_Sources_to_Designate_the_Byzantine_State. Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία, Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων (from the mid-sixth century), and 'Ρωμανία (as the eastern empire) are all attested.

(The author's suggestion of Ρωμαίων επικράτεια aka "Roman Domain" I don't think we need to consider because we are not trying to pick a new name in Greek today just use the name that the state used during its existence.) Biz (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox should give the English name. That's bog standard across all articles with infoboxen. I'd sooner see the Latin and Greek removed. Lounghis' article seems to indicate that basileia is marginally more common than the others, but also that there was no single term; in which case it might be better to have a footnote that lists the various Greek terms rather than giving one Greek term preeminance in the infobox. Generally speaking, the infobox is a bad place for anything complicated or nuanced. Furius (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. So in terms of footnote text, my proposal:

"The ways the "Byzantine Empire" was referred to among its inhabitants at the time included Res publica Romana and Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία which means the Roman commonwealth; Imperium Romanorum and Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων interpreted as empire of the Romans. 'Ρωμανία from the mid-sixth century which transliterated is Romania. From the 8th century, we see references in narrative sources to it being called Ῥωμαίων εξουσί which means 'the Roman power' or 'the Roman domination." Biz (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps add quotation marks around the translations and give "dominion" rather than "domination"? Furius (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. Yeah I was just using the source there but agreed dominion translates better. I'll make this edit and if anyone else prefers different they can edit it directly. Biz (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd put on the record that I don't like explanative footnotes on infoboxes. These articles have too many layers of notes already. If something needs an explanative note to be understood properly, then it shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I like that principle. So with that logic, we should remove the title "Byzantine Empire" altogether and move all official names into Nomenclature? Biz (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, of course not. The box still needs some title, and that is of course the title of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

great, back to the starting line again.

"byzantine empire" won

historians with a job and a degree lost

xd 2001:818:DE97:3200:21FE:784:FBA6:F3A7 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's actually nothing wrong with the term (well, other than the congnitive dissonance to understand why we use it). What's really wrong is how scholarship has constructed a view that frames the facts to create a certain narrative, sometimes false, which has and continues to be used for power. The conventional name may change one day; however, understanding how the scholarship has been constructed to distort a narrative is the harder thing to understand and the necessary precondition before there can be any name changes. I implore you to spend more time thinking about this and not the surface level issue of the name. At least, this is what good historians with a degree should be doing. Biz (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You've typed so many words, yet you initiated your paragraph with the following sentence:

"There's actually nothing wrong with the term".

there's not much else to say, unfortunately... 2001:818:DE97:3200:891:FC3F:9896:65C3 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR: Society

I've done a thorough review of "society" this last month. This includes verifying all the original sources, adding new sources (Kaldellis 2023 as a baseline but more where I could like Rotman's new book on slavery that I read and which I discovered from a a review of his earlier book that was used as a reference), expanding on content consequently and re-arranging content where I could. While I feel like I've made an appropriate effort on WP:V (I should point out it was clear to me people who added some of these sources never actually read them which concerns me about the rest of the article), I would like more eyes to ensure I've met other important principles like WP:NPOV. WP:SS is an issue that bugs me, and will happen as certain main articles are improved (Languages of the Roman Empire is one potentially) or created (side note: education needs expansion and has a lot that could be covered). I've made all the references sfnm to enable more references to be added later. This work still feels incomplete and I will continue to work on it as I read more sources this year, but it's now at a point where I'd value more eyes if you've not kept up with the edits I've made.

My preference is you just go in edit the copy unless you feel it really needs to be discussed here. Thanks! Biz (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This needs tó be adressed

There needs tó be more explanation for the debated start date for the Byzantine Empire. Some may say 330, some may say 395, some may say 286. It’s a very complicated scenario. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be, because it's a total retrospective fiction. There was never such a thing as the "Byzantine Empire", and where we precisely draw the line is totally arbitrary and changes almost nothing. The founding of Constantinople is as good a choice as any, and it's what Kaldellis uses in the omnibus narrative history he published last year. Remsense诉 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't want to condescend, but I hope it's helpful that I keep trying to give you the same advice framed in different ways: these periodizations, factoids, and statistics are not the most important things about history. You're free to work on what you like, but if you want to improve the encyclopedia, I would look at contributing to prose, not infoboxes. This is a featured article, there's probably an especially good reason things are the way they are. Remsense诉 02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m sure you know What the dates are refering Too, but the Roman Empire was stil a unified polity when Cosstantinople was founded. It split apart in 395. But no, that edit has only been there recently, as befor this, í was on the page a couple days ago and it said 330/395. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's complex, but that's also my point—it's complicated to the degree that I don't think the infobox needs to be burdened with that information: luckily one generally agreed upon date is fine, because again it's something we're imposing backwards mostly so that we have somewhere to start. The Roman empire from the 3rd century on was never really ruled from one center for long, it was simply too big for that—it's a miracle it took until Theodosius for it to bifurcate for good Remsense诉 02:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Byzantine Empire" in 2024

Why? 2001:818:DE97:3200:7CB9:1417:523:E5AA (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because that is what people refer to it as. For example, Anthony Kaldellis strongly objects to "Byzantine" as a word, but still felt it necessary to subtitle his book "A History of Byzantium". Book sales are presumably higher when people know what you're talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What Airship wrote is the why we are forced to right now. It's the convention. Kaldellis is confident it's not defensible (ie, new generation of academic staff not beholding to past thinking) and it's only a matter of time when the convention will change. His book is a giant leap in moving the conversation, but as a Wikipedia community, we have to respect that we follow the convention set by the academics (at minimum).

There is a deeper reason at play though which is why do historians wish to treat a period of the Roman state as a different entity, which in turn justifies giving it a different name. I've seen editors focused on Roman history here even call it a different civilization.

Fortunately, there has been a lot of great scholarship that is correcting this. For example, I was just reading recently about how education was done (Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 2012) and that it was the exact same from the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman times and right through to the end of the Byzantine empire. This consistency is not the type of thing that justifies calling it a different civilization. Yet there is nothing on Wikipedia that references this credible scholarship and to help address this misconception. Times these misconceptions by a thousand and this is what editors here can do in the interim to help support a convention change if this is what you care about.

We need more people helping us review every sentence and citation in this article if you or anyone else wants to join in. Biz (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle. Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums. Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes. Because WP has editors and policies that have, to everyone's surprise, stood the test of time and work. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle."

"Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums."

Conflicting statements.

"Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes."

Who are you quoting? 2001:818:DE97:3200:CC3:812C:62B3:DF (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The term “Byzantine” should no longer be used by Wikipedia

The term "Byzantine" is basically a derogatory term for the Eastern Roman Empire and shouldn't be used. Whether it's on an article description, or just for general usage in a page. While even though they were Romans it would be better to use Eastern Roman to show they were Romans but also ethnicity, and culturally different. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We go by what the sources think is the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, we can point to how the world’s foremost proponent against “Byzantium” put that word in the title of his recent magnum opus. Or when newly-created accounts start titling themselves "EasternRomanHistory435". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While disruptively changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" 40+ times with no explanation, discussion, or consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the Eastern Roman Empire constitutes enough evidence to state my point. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a comment is proof enough for me that ByzantineHistory435 is WP:NOTHERE.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the user name, this is obviously just trolling. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to add more names?

I understand that although the byzantine empire is a totally inaccurate name, it is the common name so it has to be used but when I try to add other names mainly the roman empire or Romanía It gets reverted? Daemonofthered (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everything one knows about something has to be in the infobox, which is meant to display key facts at a glance for a general audience per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Less is more. With that in mind, the consensus hammered out by contributors on this talk page has been not to add more names. They're in the body in any case. Remsense诉 12:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the key point is MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which specifies that alternative names should a) be significant in English use and b) redirect to the article. Roman Empire and Romania obviously do neither. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Doy, I'm dumb.) Remsense诉 12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand why Roman Empire can’t be used, but Romanía (with the í, instead of the regular i in Romania the country) is becoming a more popular term for the byzantine empire in online historical communities such as reddit. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That matters precisely zero. We write articles based on what appears in reliable sources, not Reddit. The current emphasis reflects that in English-language RS. Also, those names are mentioned, but just, yknow, in the actual article. People obsess with the lead sentences and infobox as if there isn't tens of thousands of actually interesting words. Remsense诉 17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Kaldellis is probably the most well known Byzantine historian today and he often refers to it as Romanía in his books. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kalldellis (2023) is probably one of my favorite narrative histories. However, it's one book among many (though the most recent omnibus history). He's still known by his peers as being a little insistent about it. Maybe it'll be a more common name for the general public in 10 or 30 years, but these things don't turn on a dime. Remsense诉 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood Daemonofthered (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

You may have seen I've done some work recently on Governance, Military (a new section) and Diplomacy following the review on Society I did six months ago. As much as I enjoy this, I will not be able to continue at a similar pace for what has been asked. This is a call for help for additional reviewers as otherwise the article will lose its feature article status, which will be a shame as it's the longest running Feature Article on Wikipedia.

We need people to review the following sections:

• Law
• Flags and insignia
• economy
• Daily life
• science and medicine
• Religion
• Legacy

The article could also do with new sections around demography, clothing and the Relationship with Western Christendom. There's main articles floating around on these topics.

Anyone that can help with issues previously raised would also be of great help;

• Ensure all the issues listed in SandyGeorgia's comments are addressed
• Ensure all the images are sourced as per here

I've started reviewing the scholarship for Law (though I have completed a big piece of research on Nomos empsychos); @AirshipJungleman29 is knee deep on rewriting/reviewing the rest of history; and @Aza24 is taking point on Arts.

Once all the above is done we are going to take a fresh look at the article and condense it further. At minimum we can reduce some sections, some of which have been expanded and completely rewritten, by moving that work into the main articles. Biz (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Biz, I've been following your exemplary work here closely. We could ask some others about some of these remaining sections, I can think of at least two people for the Religion and Science ones. A new user just nominated Poverty in ancient Rome to FAC, perhaps they could look at the economy section here. I'm thinking Iazyges or Borsaka could help out as well. Aza24 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, Graearms (the editor I alluded to above) has agreed to take a look at the Economy section. Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And now Jenhawk777 has agreed to rewrite the religion section! Although they may be delayed a bit, that shouldn't be an issue (no rush!). – Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rework of Religion section

Hello! Thank you for the invite. I have copied the original religion section to my sandbox and will be working there. Feel free to visit and kibbitz. I will bring the completed section here before publishing. I am organizing it chronologically rather than topically, but in doing so, that means covering from the first century to 1453. I will try to keep it as concise as possible. There will be plenty of citations (since I always do) using sfn to the highest quality sources (which will be, of course, verifiable). I will do my best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jenhawk777! Anthony Kaldellis spends an inordinate amount of text covering church controversies in his 2023 history The New Roman Empire. We're using Kaldellis as a baseline for the entire article review as it's the latest scholarship, which is not to say he is correct, but on this topic I know he has a lot to say and that is not covered in other narrative histories. Biz (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, church controversies are largely responsible for the formation of the Eastern churches. I think that's pretty much undisputed. Aza24, and Biz, and anyone else interested, please go to User:Jenhawk777/sandbox, (please skip over the beginnings of the source list) and please read and comment on what is there under the Religion section heading.

I did not include a lot on the common history before the seventh century. This is the history of Byzantine Christianity, specifically, so there is slightly more detail after the 600's.

I took much of this from History of Christianity, so I simply transferred the citations, but then I combined and removed and summarized, and have barely begun editing those sources accordingly. Generally, I would rather be flogged than work on lists of sources, but I'm doing it. If either of you feel like checking and helping, I will figuratively kiss your Wikipedia feet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to contribute on this yet but I can later. I'll try to leave some inline comments. Two things stand out: there is no mention of paganism; and more analysis and with a secondary chronological narrative would better (we already have a history section in the article that covers the narrative). Might be worth listing all the major religious events and disputes and expanding on those. Biz (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work so far. Note that concision (I know, I know) is the name of the game here (the original length of the article was 16,000 words), and so care must be taken that nothing is duplicated elsewhere.

• The first three paragraphs should probably be combined and condensed; the last two sentences of the third paragraph certainly need a hatchet.
• ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Dude! I expect this from you at all times! It's become a comfort to me that some things in life are predictable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I did what Biz asked, instead of what you asked, knowing you will hate it, because I added stuff on state religion which I had previously left out as unnecessary detail. I'm clearly a waffler. Feel free to hatchet away as you see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    I have done some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph is good.
• Fifth paragraph: periodisation is discussed in "History"; not so much detail on the political disunity needed, but more on the theological differences.
  • The political was the religious and vice versa, but I did remove the duplication. I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Sixth paragraph: iconoclasm was the controversy of Byantine religion; it needs a paragraph, not a sentence.
  • Ummm, no. I don't know where you get the idea that iconoclasm was more significant than other controversies. I can expand on it, but I'm having a little dissonance here that's causing some dizziness - you are asking me to add material? Is this really you or some alien pretending to be you? Really, this is a bot right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Seventh paragraph: not really needed in my eyes—we need to keep this focused on the religion of the Byzantine Empire, not the history of Eastern Orthodoxy.
  • Dear, my dear, Byzantine orthodoxy is Eastern Orthodoxy, and it formed Eastern Europe. That seems significant to a few people, founding literatures and countries and all that, at least in its own small way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I shortened it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Eighth paragraph—what I expected from the fifth, should probably be combined.
  • No, no, chronological order remember. Divisions showing in the fourth century, increased in the seventh, and culminated in the eleventh. Can't combine them. That would be a false narrative. Tsk, tsk. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Ninth paragraph will be addressed in "History" (the bits that matter at least); should be reduced to a sentence.
• Tenth paragraph: same thing.
  • Done as much as possible, but since there was a Latin takeover of the eastern church in Constantinople, I think that should probably be mentioned. It can be completely removed if you feel strongly about it. I'm kind of lukewarm. Could be my air conditioning. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Eleventh paragraph: we'll have to figure out later after seeing what is addressed in "History" and "Legacy".
  • seems religious to me. The reunion agreement certainly was. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a really good foundation to make an FA-quality section from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• • In the South we call that a back-handed compliment. Sort of like "That dress is much better than the one you wore yesterday". I sentence you to watching Steel Magnolias three times in a row - without popcorn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Biz, I am copying all of your comments from my sandbox to here and will respond here.

• Make this one sentence, does not need to be expressed in too many words ~Biz.
  • It is two sentences. Which do you think should be cut and why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I didn't see Airship's feedback until now, and I have a preference to concision as well, so this is an easy thing to cut..,but I also do like how you've reworded it. It's probably worth mentioning the prevalence of Greek is what contributed to the spread. Sidenote: Is there a compelling reason we can add to kick this off on why it spread so well at this time beyond common language, trade routes and a good story? Did the Empire provide something of an incubator? I'm thinking along of lines of how in south Asia, some low class Hindu's became Muslim to escape this low status (or to get tax benefits, or because they were forced). Biz (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      The prevalence of Greek is mentioned later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      Side note: Yes of course, more can always be added - but is it necessary detail? To be concise, detail must be eliminated as much as possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      It’s not Greek per se that I care about, but an explanation of how it happened and became the identity of the new Romans.

      For example, Treadgold 1997 p28 “Some Byzantines later believed that God had fostered the Greek language and the Roman state for the very purpose of helping Christianity to spread.” Expanding on this with why, with multiple views from scholarship, is a good way to start the section. Biz (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      I've made some changes in order to make the progression of division more apparent. Ss what you think while keeping in mind this must remain an overview with little detail. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• there was no "eastern" empire before 284 so does not need coverage
  • Slip on my part. Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is not needed, we deal with the politics of Byzantium elsewhere. But the challenges with the Pope is very important ~Biz.
  • Well, the first sentence is easy enough to remove. Done. But the second sentence is the lead sentence for the rest of the paragraph, which also connects to the lead sentence of the paragraph before it. (The Pope has now come between them, but this response is still valid, since it's the next thing you ask for.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• There should be something about how Rome was given primacy (ie, Canon 28 in the Council of Constantinople -- see page 203-24 of Kaldellis) but the conflict was that decisions should be made by councils according to the east ~Biz.
  • Papal primacy was a slow and incremental process culminating in the Investiture controversy in 1078. Are you sure you want all of that since it's western? How about if I just mention it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Papal primacy is the core conflict between Catholics and Orthodox even today. It was the demand made right until the end of the Empire, and even when the emperor gave in due to desperation in the late era, the populace revolted against it and revoked it. So yes, documenting the origins of this dispute matters. Separate to the Investiture. Biz (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would say one of the conflicts. I have added it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz 10 August feedback Some quick points, sorry I don't have more time to go deeper this moment

• general comment: hard to give an opinion and the truly assess the content without reading the sources. If you're done this separately, would be good to see those notes. otherwise reliant on my knowledge of which this is loosely correct but very wordy and could be more neutral. There a lot of duplication of what is covered elsewhere: try to focus the content only on the religious dimension.
  • I will finish moving the sources. They are at History of Christianity or in the list above this section in my sandbox.
  • More neutral? Excuse me? What are you referring to? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    The discussion about Byzantium. Already discussed and removed. Biz (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Could you explain the last sentence? This is what the religious dimension looks like. It's not all theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• • speaking of which, every sentence should have a citation. Aim for three. This will help compress the expression of main themes.
    • Every sentence does have a citation. If every sentence in a paragraph is from the same page, of the same book, combining citations into one at the end is suggested for "decluttering" according to WP guidelines.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Make a list of key ideas (one per paragraph you want to communicate). This will be easier for us discuss before getting lost in sources and copy editing. For example, with law that I am working on right now, I've got four paragraphs (Explain what is Roman Law, Explain what is Byzantine Law, impact on others, historian debates) that I am currently drafting. It's a good exercise to help cluster what can be a lot of complexity as is the case with this topic.
  • I don't believe this section should be organized thematically. It would be too easy for the average sophomore to get completely lost. It is chronological instead, so your suggestion, while a good one, isn't really possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• there should be something about how Christianity became the state religion of the empire. Like why did it replace Paganism. For example, Kaldellis mentions how Constantine on p.25 did it to melt the temples metals for his coinage
  • Current scholarship indicates Christianity never became the state religion. Constantine certainly never did it. I can add that, but it's another addition that's about the Christianity that existed before the Byzantine version. Are you sure that's what you want? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Paganism began to decline in the second century BC, before Christianity ever came along. Gibbon was wrong. Current views are that one did not "replace" the other in a see-saw fashion. I can add a sentence on the "religious marketplace" that existed then if you like. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    Describing the decline in paganism and how one morphed into the other is interesting. Given some historian still use Christianity as a reason to differentiate the "Byzantine Empire" from the "Roman" empire, this is interesting to help challenge (or reinforce) those views. Biz (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Constantine did not do it, correct. Theodosius and Justinian did more towards this. I think it's an important point to explain this changing view that it's not a state church as this links to the Caesaropapism I've come across in some scholarship but seems to be from the previous generation of historians. Showing how the emperors adopted Christianity for practical reasons to achieve their objectives is interesting to explain and help us understand why the Romans morphed into this direction. Biz (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am glad to find a kindred spirit who also finds all of this as interesting as I do. I certainly agree that it is. But does that mean it should be added to this article? Keeping in mind the need to be concise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is why I proposed doing a section plan of key ideas that need to be communicated before putting pen to paper (one idea per paragraph is how I said it, though that's more a writing style). By being clear about what needs to be communicated, we can be concise as we can evaluated everything as whether is supports those points. So maybe we need this discussion first. Biz (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• There needs to be a complete coverage of church controversies. Of the top of my head but Arianism, monophysites, Chalcedon, monotheletism, iconoclasm, palamism. I think you've covered a few but not all. Not all of them led to new churches. It would be refreshing to read someone can explain all these in one paragraph!
  • This is a totally unnecessary rabbit-hole that we should not go down in a religion section of a larger article. I already allude to them and their impact. Less detail is better, not more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Iconoclasm: it's what sparked the chain of events of why we are calling this empire Byzantine now, so that's enough of a reason why it should be covered.

  Palamism: it describes a characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy that helps explain it's stark difference from western christendom, and may surprise people who read this far into the article how late it was adopted, challenging people who say the Orthodox are the Orthodox ones...

  The others nearly tore the empire apart. Religion was used as a form of managing national security. The fact it involved multiple emperors as one of their top priorities to resolve shows the importance.` High level, agree not to go into detail, but we can't ignore it. Biz (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  'Byzantine' is a term coined by 16th-century historians. In Averil Cameron's Late antiquity and Byzantium: an identity problem she discusses the many problems current scholarship is having in saying when 'Byzantine' actually began. There is no consensus to support your first sentence.

  There cannot possibly be complete coverage of the many controversies and be concise. Those are conflicting demands. An overview without detail is all that's possible and that is already given.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the latest and most comprehensive research of why we've used Byzantine since the 19th century and how it was invented by a Greek nationalist, refer to Kaldellis (2022)

  • Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 366–367. ISBN 978-0-88402-484-2.

  For a perspective why the eastern Roman's stopped being called Roman in the 8th century by western Europe, and how Iconoclasm is related, refer to O'Brien

  • O'Brien, Conor (June 2018). "Empire, Ethnic Election and Exegesis in the Opus Caroli (Libri Carolini)". Studies in Church History. 54: 96–108. doi:10.1017/stc.2017.6. ISSN 0424-2084. S2CID 204470696.

  Covering them by mentioning them can be all done in one paragraph. Commentary of how it impacted other things different. Both @AirshipJungleman29 and I have consensus that Iconoclasm matters for this section. I did notice you've covered them now thank you just need completeness of what I already mentioned.

  As a general comment, things that help explain political issues that is covered in the history narration should be explained here. So for example, Iconoclasm caused issues with the West. Why did it even come about? Why was their disagreement? I see you've added something but there is no mention of how the hypothesis it was the influence of Muslims that the Empire was fighting an existential war with. No discussion about the Franks wanting to show Orthodoxy so that they could can claim to be the actual Romans. I have not looked into this this is just stuff I've read, there must be more scholarship Biz (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  No one really knows why iconoclasm came about. The hypothesis about Muslims remains a hypothesis without evidence right now. There is no evidence indicating the Franks had any influence on iconoclasm either. So 'why?' seems like a useless discussion. I can add at least two paragraphs on how, telling the roles of bishops vs. monks and more on impact, but imo, the short paragraph is sufficient. I can pump up the results a little. See if that satisfies. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yet to look but just wanted to say Kaldellis has an interesting opinion on this. He assets modern scholarship has made it something when it isn’t. P447-449, 473-475. Had more to do with pope’s frustration over other issues using this issue as cover and the influence of eastern monks now in Rome who drove a lot of the politics with Constantinople. Reflecting opinions like this which can be done in 1-2 sentences is useful. We just need a survey of a few of them. Biz (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• a paragraph on the differences between east and west culminating with 1054 is good but not more. Facts of how this relationship started changing (ie, the first schism was in the 4th century see p101-102 Kaldellis), it would periodicaly happen again until becoming permanent) is a good story to paint. What were the key points where the relationship evolved? Read page 616 of Kaldellis onwards about how there was a major misunderstanding due to the letter of Leon of Ohrid.
  • I think I did that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Society/Transition into an Eastern Christian empire

I have problems with the accuracy of this sentence: Theodosius in 391 issued a series of edicts essentially banning pagan religion: pagan sacrifices, ceremonies, access to pagan places of worship were restricted and this eventually included the Olympic Games. I think it should be removed.

Dealing with the last claim first, classicist Ingomar Hamlet says that, contrary to popular myth, Theodosius did not ban the Olympic games. Sofie Remijsen indicates there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius I, coming to an end under Theodosius II instead. Two scholia on Lucian connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the Olympian Zeus during his reign.

In the centuries following his death, Theodosius gained a reputation as the champion of orthodoxy and the vanquisher of paganism, but modern historians see this as a later interpretation of history by Christian writers rather than actual history. Classicist Alan Cameron explains that, since Theodosius's predecessors Constantine, Constantius, and Valens had all been semi-Arians, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity. Numerous literary sources, both Christian and pagan, attributed to Theodosius – probably mistakenly, possibly intentionally – initiatives such as the withdrawal of state funding to pagan cults (this belongs to Gratian) the demolition of temples (for which there is no primary evidence), and the ending of the Vestal virgins, though twenty-first century scholarship asserts they continued until 415 and suffered no more under Theodosius than they had since Gratian restricted their finances. He did turn pagan holidays into workdays, but the festivals associated with them continued.

Did Theodosius ban paganism? While conceding that Theodosius's reign may have been a watershed in the decline of the old religions, Cameron downplays the role of the emperor's 'copious legislation' as limited in effect, and writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism. In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw or advertised himself as a destroyer of the old cults; rather, the emperor's efforts to promote Christianity were cautious, 'targeted, tactical, and nuanced', and aimed mostly at those he saw as heretics. Theodosius was passionately orthodox, but for pagans, this translated into reiterating his predecessors' bans on animal sacrifice, divination, apostasy, and using the Temples or altars for these prohibited practices, while allowing other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open.

There is evidence Theodosius took care to prevent the empire's still substantial pagan population from feeling ill-disposed toward his rule. Following the death in 388 of his praetorian prefect, Cynegius, who had, contrary to Theodosius' spoken policies, vandalized a number of pagan shrines and temples in the eastern provinces, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples. During his first official tour of Italy (389–391), the emperor won over the influential pagan lobby in the Roman Senate by appointing its foremost members to important administrative posts. Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history (Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391 (when some claim he turned anti-pagan).

Previously undervalued similarities in language, society, religion, and the arts, as well as current archaeological research, indicate paganism slowly declined from the second century BC into the seventh century AD. It was not forcefully overthrown by Theodosius I in the fourth century.

References

• Bagnall, Roger S.; Alan Cameron; Seth R. Schwartz & Klaas A. Worp (1987). Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. ISBN 1-55540-099-X.
• Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974727-6.
• Errington, R. Malcolm (2006). Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-3038-0.
• Graf, Fritz (2014). "Laying Down the Law in Ferragosto: The Roman Visit of Theodosius in Summer 389". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 22 (2): 219–242. doi:10.1353/earl.2014.0022. S2CID 159641057.
• Hebblewhite, Mark (2020). Theodosius and the Limits of Empire. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315103334. ISBN 978-1-138-10298-9. S2CID 213344890.
• Kahlos, Maijastina (2019). Religious Dissent in Late Antiquity, 350–450. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-006725-0.
• Woods, David. "Theodosius I (379–395 A.D.)". De Imperatoribus Romanis.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get in trouble if I don't include that I copied much of this from other articles on Wikipedia where it is more extensively discussed: Christianity and paganism, Theodosius I, Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire, History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance and Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jenhawk

• (1) Theodosius I banning the olympics: good point. This paper used on another wikipedia article, not sure how reliable it is, agrees it could be either Thedosius I or II but we don't know. https://www.oocities.org/ejkotynski/Olympics.pdf. Kaldellis (2023) says the last was in 385 but the games in Antioch lasted until the 6th century (p138). He thinks it's a common misconception that they were banned by decree and instead interest in chariot games, lack of funding (due to state policies) and hostility from zealots is what had them end.
• (2) banning paganism. Yes, it's true paganism continued and that wording should be rewritten to reflect that it continued. The referenced source Greatrex says the following.

It was not until 391 that an emperor (Theodosios I) not only banned pagan sacrices and rituals but also forbade entry into temples and shrines...Paganism remained a potent force in many parts of the eastern empire right up until the sixth century: under Justinian energetic measures were required to purge pagans prominent at the imperial court, while in the countryside thousands remained to be converted by missionaries sent out by the emperor

Kaldellis (2023) makes the point that legal discrimination is really what happened with the goal to exterminate. p.178-179 and paganism was still strong until the 6th century. I'm also aware that paganism existed until the 11th century in the Mani Peninsula though that might be a unique case due to its inaccessibility.

As an aside, Kaldellis also mentions things like a novel form of Christian asceticism emerging in the 5th century from Syrian paganism (p182) and I think that's more what happened: harmonisation, like the point made in an earlier paragraph, where local customs became Roman and gradually called Christian.

So we can address as follows:

• we can still keep what Theodosius did but explain it did not end Paganism and emperors continued with their discrimination where it had financial impacts and we don't really see a meaningful change of the 50% pagans at 400 until Justinian where he got more dogmatic.
• make the Olympics a separate point. Given everyone's commentary about relying on Kaldellis, we should look for other support but his points seem strongest. The referenced source is not longer accessible to validate this to confirm it but it's not the best so we could do with better scholarship.

Biz (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Biz, thanx for the thoughtful reply. There is certainly evidence for legal discrimination. That can be said. And there is consensus that the extermination of sacrifice was a primary, vehemently pursued goal - though there is no consensus that there was ever a goal to exterminate polytheism itself. Not that they were tolerant or accepting, but in the Christian view of that time, it was simply unnecessary.

Christians of the fourth century believed that Constantine's conversion was proof the Christian God had defeated the pagan Gods in Heaven. He had "run them out of town". Since paganism was already defeated, they didn't need to do anything to end it. It would end inevitably all by itself. This "victory" - (when they were still about 15% of the population) - is in all the Christian writings of the period. Even pagan writings refer to it - back filling with 'prophecies' about the gods leaving because they wanted to and not because they were defeated.

It can be accurately said that Christian emperors had condescending attitudes toward paganism, practiced discrimination, and used intolerant rhetoric. But with a few exceptions, Christians were, generally, not violent toward pagans. Pagans were not a threat. Heretics were a threat. Constantine and every Christian emperor up to and including Theodosius killed heretics. They did not kill or sanction killing pagans. Not until Justinian.

Theodosius banned sacrifice, just as his predecessors had; he forbade its use for divination (the reading of entrails), and he forbade entry into temples and shrines for the purpose of making a sacrifice. Just as his predecessors. On the other hand, he wrote lots, and lots, of laws against heresy.

I think the reference you cite on the Olympic Games is a blog. There's no indication it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal or book. Here's another article by Remijsen: "Remijsen, Sofie. "The end of the ancient Olympics and other contests: Why the agonistic circuit collapsed in late antiquity." The Journal of Hellenic Studies; 135 (2015): 147-164." The two references I gave are good references. You can probably legitimately say that there is an absence of agreement on whether the games ended under Theo.#1 or #2, but also say evidence leans toward #2. It's misleading otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I've rewritten it, with a note that we can add for the different views. I hope this addresses your concern. I couldn't find Ingomar Hamlet's book, and only wiki results showed him... Biz (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I like it fine now. The note is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More general thoughts

I'm not entirely sure that the section "Transition into an eastern Christian empire" needs to be present in its current form—it seems rather "assorted events in the Late Roman Empire that are vaguely society-related". For example, we devote a paragraph to two events which happened before any of the "start dates" outlined at the start of the "History" section, which per WP:DETAIL probably should be covered in one sentence if at all, given the balance of detail given by the best sources. I recall the subsection was a hangover from the pre-FAR version of the article and sort of think the article would be improved if it were removed—the latter two paragraphs touch on subjects much better discussed in other sections, whether that be "History", "Religion", or "Science and medicine". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "Society" section in general seems heavily slanted towards the early empire. There is only one reference to society past the eighth century. Something to work on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 You have an annoying habit of always being right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The existing sources cover later periods. So yes, possible, to reword and be more specific. But the problem, generally, is there are not enough quality sources (or that I am aware of) to be able to do 2-3 citations per sentence on these specialist topics and for specific time periods. There are also a lot of gaps that theses historians complain about in terms of knowledge.

If you are fine with one citation sentences, which includes Kaldellis, I can give it a go. Biz (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz don't bother, really. The article doesn't need it. There is a dearth of primary evidence and secondary studies on Byzantium. The East has simply not been studied to the degree the Roman west has. Take AirshipJungleman's advice: "the article would be improved if it were removed". Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We can change the heading or move the content. But there needs to be somewhere where a reader can get a concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. I'm not talking about the politics, which is covered in nomenclature; but the nature.

Language, religion, and the new capital are the three things the RfC last year came to agreement on and that is reflected in the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. Language has its own section which now mostly explains the how. But the environment which created a change in the stakeholders that the emperor thought about, the vacuum for Christianity's adoption and even why this capital lasted versus Nicomedia, Sirmium, Mediolanum, Augusta Treveroru, and Ravenna? Biz (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"But there needs to be somewhere where a reader can get a concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire." Far more important, especially for a section titled "Society", is a concise answer to what the nature of Byzantine society was. Defining it in relation to what came before is not the same at all.

Also, we should probably swap around the ordering of the "Government and military" and "Society" sections, to match other FAs on former countries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine with swapping "Government and military" and "Society" . Still working on them though: hunting to get to three citations per sentence. Law I'm 75% done on this review, at the point now of adding citations to the rewrite I've drafted (which will also help make it more concise). Current text is ok, but misses some important things. "Flags and insignia" is a topic I feel needs investigation to what the current scholarship says. We can take "Transition into an Eastern Christian empire" out of "Society", simplify the first paragraph, rewrite the pagan and olympics issue identified but I believe this content is relevant to this article at a foundational level. Biz (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I've rewritten the entire section, hopefully it's less offensive now. We could re-evaluate its inclusion once we've reviewed all the other sections. Biz (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz The concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine empire is that the western half collapsed leaving the rest to become what we now call the Byzantine Empire because it was rich enough to survive on its own. Diocletian's division of the empire first set the East on a different path from the West. The East had a stable farm economy, lots of economic resources, an established Greek intellectual heritage, and an autocratic government that tightly controlled the State's truly great wealth. The West was never as stable or as wealthy as the Eastern part of the empire. It was under constant assault from invaders and geographically harder to defend. When the west collapsed, the East was strong enough to survive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's part of it. But the following questions go at the heart of what historians use to call it Byzantine and not Roman. So how do you answer this:

1) Why did the state start enforcing Christianity after previously persecuting Christians, in an increasingly aggressively way?

2) How did Greek end up being the language over the ancestral Latin despite efforts to keep it up to Justinian?

3) Why was Rome made a provincial city, the interim capitals stayed interim, and Constantinople the new permanent capital?

These are big questions not answered in one section. And you partially acknowledge it: something was already there. This section contributes to an understanding based on the latest narrative scholarship. Biz (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

1) in the religion section 2) in the language subsection 3) in the society section, where it isn't currently answered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

1. 1) They did both - if they did both - for the same reasons really. The Roman state valued peace and order at home, and they believed it was the leaders place to obtain divine favor to ensure those things. Roman Empire in late antiquity saw the state as a religious institution with none of the separation between "secular" and "religious" that moderns expect. Monarchy was thought to be the only viable form of government; therefore the chief duty of all ancient monarchs was to gain heavenly favor. This is in the Cambridge History of Christianity on pages 405 and 421 in Drake's article titled ""The church, society and political power". Once the monarchs were Christian, they still had the same responsibility.

But the real question here is, "when did the State actually begin "enforcing" Christianity?" Constantine wrote laws against sacrifice and magic, and laws that favoured Christianity, but there was no legislation forcing the conversion of pagans until the reign of the Justinian I in A.D. 529. Michelle Renee Salzman's "The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the 'Theodosian Code" is available on jstor. There's Drake again, and Patricia Southern's book "The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine" for starters, but there is consensus on that single fact.

There is no doubt that Christian emperors wanted the empire to become a Christian empire. (I think Salzman says that.) They certainly had the power to make laws stating plainly and clearly "everyone must be Christian". Theodosius said all Christians must be Nicene or they can't consider themselves as Catholics - but that's a far cry from forcing all pagans to become Christian. There are laws that some scholars have said "implied" what you suggest, but if enforcement was the goal, why leave something they thought was important to implication and interpretation? Why not just say so? That's what hangs up modern scholars. No one before Justinian did so.

(2) is a question for language, not religion, but I do know that Greek had been the common language going back into BC. It probably has to do with education among the elite since they studied the Greek classics, and probably diplomacy.

(3) How are you defining "provincial" city? I don't think I understand exactly what you're asking.

Don't get defensive about cutting content. It is not a comment on your work. For brevity, it must be done. Everything you can think of can't be included. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

As part of the FAR of this article, its become apparent there is lot of missing content so the article does not have the comprehensiveness it needs to have. As a case in point, I've just created a new section "army" and am planning to create "navy" next. Clothing and Geography are articles that exist and that the Roman Empire article covers, but is also is missing. I wanted to ask what else is missing from this article so we can add it to the list Biz (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the entirety of the army section referenced to two sources? That is nowhere near FA standards (see criterion 1c), and will have to be rewritten again. Let's focus on making sure our additions are of suitable quality, rather than worrying about what isn't there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought Haldon and Kaldellis covered the issues enough to enable neutral coverage for all perspectives. Criterion 1c is qualitative not quantitative. Treadgold's 1990s work and Cambridge's 2019 narrative history I could review. But as I'm so far off, to meet the standard, what should I also be including? Biz (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Literally anything high-quality—but make sure that what you're writing is verified by the text. Take the following sentence: "Foreign mercenaries also increasingly became employed, including the better-known Tagma unit, the Varangian Guard, that guarded the emperor." Does the cited source, Haldon p. 556, say that the Varangians guarded the emperor? Does it say that they were a "Tagma [sic] unit"? Does it even say that they were called "the Varangian Guard"? I understand this level of prose and sourcing quality may be difficult to achieve, but they are the FA standards. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend combining "army" and "navy" in one "military" section; otherwise there will be a lot of duplication when specifying time periods. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Re sourcing: got it. My approach has always been creative expression to avoid CLOP, and sources for key facts, with multiple sources if controversial. But the reason I'm drawn to this project is epistemology, and I'm seeing very much the importance of what you are saying. So will see what I can do. (Also, Tagma is singular; yes most sources called it a guard; I'll find a new source that explicitly explains these facts.)

Re the Navy.: I'll see what I can do. I think it will be a paragraph and since it has it's own main article, it's justified. But will first focus on the army rewrite and see if I can reduce the word out which is the main reason I separated it. Biz (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Which edition of Treadgold are you using? As far as I can see, none were published in 2002. Please take care when "correcting" the bibliography's sources, because ones that are use will break (you may wish to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors if you haven't already). While we're here, could you also take care to make sure page numbers are formatted—p. for a single page, pp. for multiple? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Using Kindle. I'll use 1997. Will correct with PP. And wondering, can we just use sfnm and avoid sfn? sfnm works for singular references, allows for consistency, reduce learning curve for newer editors, makes it easy to add more source in future. Biz (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing with sfnm is that it's a massive pain with multiple-author sources. I wonder, is anyone willing to do the grunt work and convert the collected-edition sources into {{harvc}}s? Bit of a faff, but it'll significantly improve the reference layout. Otherwise I'll do that after I've finished the History section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

On a similar note, I don't like the "12th-century renaissance" section at all. It's part of the arts section, which I am gradually rewriting, but the whole section seems overblown and awkwardly placed: "art, music architecture, literature, (?) 12-century Renaissance". It looks like it should be incorporated in the economy section (where the effect is more covered), and mentioned in the visual arts section where appropriate.

Also, iconoclasm is a bit awkward as well. Mentioned in the history section, and has its own small section. A rewritten art section would also probably include it. Not sure if the dedicated section should be removed or something else. – Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the time when Greco-Roman knowledge, including Justinians's code transferred to the West so there is a lot that could be written here. Not sure where to put it, but not economy -- but feel free to move somewhere and we will get to it. Perhaps rename it as renaissance and move it in legacy.

The dispute over iconoclasm is a huge topic that impacts art and religion but also relations with western Europe. I don't see an issue if you separately cover it in arts, it's covered in history, and the existing section in religion remains. Kaldellis (2023) went into over-drive to cover Church controversies, not sure if I can stomach reading that again but there's plenty to cover. Biz (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not feel that you have to retain any of these sections. As I recall, most were created when the FAR began, to reduce the overreliance on the "History" section (see this comment above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am half-considering the benefits of a radically different layout: one where the top-level headings are the history time-periods, and developments in military/arts/religion are made subsections. I think that might help the awkwardness/disjointedness of some sections, but it would mean a complete overhaul and might be a little odd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to give a bit more detail on your layout ideas, but I am highly sympathetic the premise. The current structure is a mess; the Science and medicine sections mix philosophy and science probably more than is warranted (and there's only a single sentence on medicine). The Daily life section is also strange, with only two (rather brief) subsections. Religion might work better as a subsection. The Roman Empire article seems to have a much better structure. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The value of this approach is that it will likely reduce the word count as sub-headings can be stricter (ie, with military, it talks about political and financial conditions that affected it which may double up in the history narration).

From an experience point of view, having sections on topics that are stand alone in explaining things in one narrative is probably more useful and and less disjointed to a reader. Search engines and AI ingesting this article may appreciate more the additional high level time dimension, especially if time is not segmemented in a section clearly.

From a priorities point of view, it's no longer word count. We can always assess this later when FAR is not risking the star removal as it is now and we are left with a reviewed article to see how it flows and/or doubles up. Easier to edit down and segment later, what's hard is the validation, research and rewrite/expansion now, let's solve the hard first. Biz (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely something to think about later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

But also increasingly becoming more prominent in my thinking. There's a reason all the narrative histories are chonrological rather than thematic—with such a long timespan, there will inevitably be time jumps in individual sections. Reorganising the whole article around the time periods will, I think, allow both better flow and greater specialist detail. After I've finished with the history section, I think I'll begin drafting an alternative layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely: narrative history is a specific style. There are plenty more graduate level books that have chapters or dedicated books on specific themes. Kaldellis actually did a podcast explaining this is partially what inspired him, its been so long since someone has put it all together. Too many specialists but as I’m finding, still not enough.

Regardless, I’m impressed with how middle ages does it so open to this. It will inspire future work in time periods, just like how the last 30 years we’ve seen scholarship in diplomacy, the military, law, slavery, language, women. For example, this one synopsium in 1990 is the only work on diplomacy up until that date; Kaegi pioneered military that Treadgold, Haldon and Pryor have built on; the awareness of how woeful our understanding of law and women is even more apparent. Haldon seems to be focussed on climate now, a theme Kaldellis is aware the next narrative history will need to cover to update our understanding. By doing time periods future FAR’s will have focus filling those gaps with the latest scholarship. It may be worth documenting the historians by era or theme for future editors. Biz (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Standardisation in the article

(1) Dating scheme: Should we use BCE/AD per the consensus on Roman Empire?

(2) East and West: Should we capitalise when referring to the Western and Eastern Empires, and lower case when talking about regions?

(3) Empire usage: Should we capitalise when referring to the "empire"? When referring to the Empire before Diocletian, which is where Treadgold and Kaldellis start their narratives of the Byzantine Empire, should we refer to it as Roman Empire or early Empire or just "Empire"? Biz (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You are rather confused here! "BCE/AD"!! No, not that. Both articles use BC/AD, & must continue to do so until a proposal to change either succeeds, per WP:ERA. There is no real reason they should be consistent though, but such change proposals rarely succeed for subjects like this. I would say we should capitalize Roman Empire, Western Empire and Eastern Empire when in that form, but "empire" if it is by itself. Most regions will be capitalized proper names - Syria, Greece etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe on point 3, the MOS makes the straightforward prescription that "empire" (or "city", et al.) should be capitalized when functioning as an abbreviated proper noun, and not when being used as a common noun—that can be subtle, see MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I thought there had been some flurry of support since I last checked Talk:Roman Empire, but I don't think so—there's no consensus there, right? I suppose my argument would be identical to mine there: even if every source used one, we should WP:RETAIN the other, as they are perfect synonyms to a degree beyond normal word use considerations.
2. I am completely impartial here, though. Both are fine.

Remsense ‥ 诉 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I support switching to CE rather than AD for the sole reason that "X Year CE" is more gramatically correct than "X Year AD" Garflasange (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you should strike your !vote, since you are incorrect about this. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

AD stands for "the year of our lord' you say 'the year old our lord 2021' not '2021 the year old our lord' Garflasange (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to rewrite that sentence so it makes grammatical sense; while you do that, you may wish to consider which languages you're speaking or typing in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

1) BC/AD, see MOS:DATEVAR. 2) Yes. 3) see what I've done in e.g. "Early history (pre-518)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 Your acerbic wit always manages to make me smile. My vote:

1) BC/AD

2) yes

3) yes, capitalize when used as a title; Early Empire is commonly used by scholars to describe the era before Constantine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)