Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Name in the info box

In the info box on the right, the official name for the Empire is stated as being Βαυιλέα Ρωμαίων, while the text itself includes the article τών. Furthermore, the English translation is said to be "Roman (Byzantine) Empire", while in my opinion it should be "Empire of (the) Romans" ("the" depending on τών). And while "Roman Empire" might still be a fitting translation, the term "Byzantine" should not enter the equation at all; it is an entirely anachronistic label (as the article itself repeatedly states) coined by European historians centuries after the fall of Constantinople. By the way, can anyone tell me how to enter polytonic Greek words here? --MasterLycidas 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Purported" reason of Great Schism?

Quote: "The schism was purported to stem from the Eastern Church's refusal to accept the western doctrine that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son (filioque), and not the Father alone; in reality, however, there were a number of political interests involved in the division of the Christian Church."

This implies that the Filioque discussion was purely an abstract pretext, and the political issues were the sole real-life reason for the split. Isn't that a bit of a one-sided and anachronistic view? -- 85.179.125.250 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrasing could be toned down a bit. It's undeniable, however, that political interests were a key, if unstated consideration. For that matter, maybe if the papal emissaries had been better fed, and less obstinate, the schism might never have happened. Slac speak up! 01:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious if there is an authoritative source that says this but is it not fair to say that, when the Pope declared Charlemagne the Roman Emperor he had effectively split the Church then and the final "Schism" was more of an excuse to make it official? In other words, my understanding is that the Pope's move with Charlemagne was intended to reassert his authority which the other patriarchs continued to deny. My understanding is that the Schism was, in essence, firing problem employees for insubordination. --Mcorazao 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne made also sure that the Church was united: Although the Frankish Church at the Synod of Frankfurt (794)had rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), the Pope attached two silver plaques on the basilica of St. Peter containing the Creed in Latin and in Greek. Both without the filioque. So there was no Schism whatsoever in around 800. The only schismatic Church at the time was the Frankish Church which included the filioque in its services. See Judith Herrin, "The Formation of Christendom" for an excellent account of this period.

The most important reason for the split hasn't been mentioned yet: The issue of papal supremacy. Religiously, the decisive split was under Photius in 867. Photius didn't read Latin and didn't understand the Filioque issue. (Filioque had not yet been adopted in Rome at that time anyway.) The emperor later papered over the dispute to form a political alliance with the pope, but churchmen in the East were never reconciled and asserted their independence at the next opportunity. Kauffner 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kauffner is right; the Coronation of Charlemange annoyed the Byzantine emperors, although they had more or less made up by 812, but I can't think it bothered the Eastern churches that much, whereas Papal supremacy had been an issue for centuries, and remains one today. Johnbod 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

More on the name

I've read in some places (not authoritative works) that, although the Western Church and the Frankish court would frequently refer to the Eastern Empire as the "Greek Empire" or the "Empire at Constantinople," it was at least as common in Western Europe to refer to it as "Romania." If this is true it is not true if this was before the emergence of the "Holy Roman Empire" or throughout the Middle Ages. In any event, if this is the case it makes sense to at least mention it.

Also, although I have no specific information, "Romania" is much more of a Latin name than a Greek name (i.e. the Greek name looks borrowed from Latin). My guess is that the name actually arose before the so-called "Byzantine period" began, perhaps in Rome. Anybody know anything about that? If so this seems worthwhile to clarify (i.e. that it was not a name the "Greeks" invented but a name they continued to use). --Mcorazao 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

About the name of Byzantium (Byzantion Grk). If you research you would discover that the term Byzantium was inspired by the fact that the city Constantine founded for his new rome was on the site of the ancient greek city of Byzantium. Wikipedia also mentions this city (quote): "Byzantium (Greek: Βυζάντιον) was an ancient Greek city, which, according to legend, was founded by Greek colonists from Megara in 667 BC and named after their king Byzas or Byzantas (Βύζας or Βύζαντας in Greek)." This also explains why the natives of Constantinople were predominantly Greek. So, I would believe that the natives would still have used the term Byzantion in their own daily life - even if they were Roman citizens by that stage. Wouldn't that make sense? Then the claim that the term was first given to them by a Western historian may not be accurate? ~~Applesnpeaches~~

"Byzantine" was indeed sometimes used in the middle ages for the inhabitants of Constantinople, but never so far as I know for the empire as a whole. This at least is the standard account that gets trotted out in the first page of most every survey. --Javits2000 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal

I suggest for this articles to be split into "Byzanine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", due to the fact that in it`s current state, it merely reflects the Greek vision on the issue. It is simply unacceptable to have the Latin name of the Empire deleted, both from the lead and from the infobox, and insted have only the Greek one. It is simply unacceptable to have all categories deleted except for the "History_of_Greece" one. The "see also" subchapter is full of redundant Greek content (Greek churhc, Greek patriarch, List of Greek patriarchs, History of Greece, Greek culture, etc) Mursili 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE Look, this empire is widely known as the Byzantine Empire. That is not a Greek name at all, in fact it is a French name who happens to have established itself. The Greek state is widely accepted to have the best claim as "cultural inheritor" of the BE. The BE gradually stopped using Latin and focused solely on the Greek language. The Byzantine church and its patriarchs survived the fall of the empire and failing to convert the Turks became a ethnik church focussing upon the Greeks/Byzantines besides continuing to convert other ppl (Russians, Serbians, etc). You are free to improve any article in a serious manner. Flamarande 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn`t clear: this proposal camed after such "attempts to improve the article in a serious manner" [1], attempts which have hit the Greek POV on the issue. You argued to issues I didn`t addresed Flamarande! Read carefully from "due to the fact that..." and comment on that. Mursili 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea how that split should be done and what it would achieve. "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, no matter how you treat its relation to the Greek ethnicity (which seems to be what you are concerned about, if I read you correctly). Which of the two articles you propose would deal with what exactly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly! "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, yet the current article looks something like Byzantine Empire = Greece and the Greek people and the Greek culture and the Greek patriarchs, since ever! Forget about Romans, forget about the ascendant Latin, forget about other countries whose categories belong too in the cat. section. Forget about everything except Greece and Greeks [2]: the only category allowed in the cats. section is "History_of_Greece" cat. All other will to be deleted. The only name in the lead is the Greek one. The Latin one shall be removed. The "See also" should contain as much Greek-related link as possible, even though it`s redundant. And so on... I hope you recognise irony, and that I didn`t actually meant for the article to be split. It was just the only solution I could find to settle an old issue Miskin (plus a gang of Greek editors) and I had. Mursili 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article looks at all like that. The article describes with precision how the Empire evolved, from a Roman Imperial state (early period) to a Greek monarchy (late period) that recognised its domain after the Fourth Crusade as "their Hellenic land". Whether you like it or not, the non-Byzantines did view Byzantium as a corrupted version of ancient Greece (but we don't take that into account in this article). Nobody here forgets about Romans, but I'm not sure if you know the average Greek called himself "rhomaios" and his language "Romaic" at an official level up until the 19th century. I don't know how familiar you are with Byzantine and modern Greek history, but stating how you don't like some things is not enough of a reason to make changes. As far as I'm concerned you're probably not familiar enough with the topic and you find some things strange or POV because they're unknown to you. This is why you must always provide a source in order to either refute the validity of the existing content. Miskin 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• Modern Greek was the language of the middle-late Byzantine Empire
• Greek Orthodoxy was its religion
• 'Greece' and 'Greeks' were the state's and the people's principal contemporary name
• The Empire's elite during its late period recognised itself as 'Hellas' (Greece)
• The Greek peninsula, islands etc were part of its "native" regions
• Modern Greeks bare the same names as Byzantine Greeks, are their direct ancestors, follow the same religion of a continuous Church and speak the same language
• Half of today's Greek state's population are immigrants of the Empire's other native regions (Constantinople and the Anatolian coasts)
• And the list goes on...

So as a neutral editor, what kind of modern state or culture would you suggest to link with the article? Miskin 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the Latin name in the lead. I was never really against that, it's just not a common wikipedia practice. The 'Imperium Romanorum' is not mentioned in the lead of the Holy Roman Empire nor any article of the countless states that recognised themselves as heritors to the Roman Empire (despite the fact that many of them were regarded as "Latins" by language, religion and culture). In the case of Byzantium it becomes more ambiguous because although the empire started off as the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire, it gradually came to mean the opposite of the "Latin West". In any case I added it in the lead in order to avoid disputes. Similarly the practice of adding a great number of templates "history of X" country under an imperial state is not followed in any other similar article. And as for the "redundant Greek content", Flamarande explained it to you. The Greek Orthodox Church is the only (and principal) Byzantine institution that has an unbroken history since the foundation of Constantinople. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch is unofficially recognised today as the "Greek Patriarch" has nothing to do with it. He was recognised in that way in the middles ages as well, but the only difference is that autocephalus Orthodox Churches didn't exist at the time. Ever since ethnic Orthodox Churches became completely independent of the Ecumenical patriarchate, names such as "Russian", "Bulgarian" and "Greek" Orthodox Church were inevitably coined. The article Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't focus on the medieval Ecumenical Patriarcate but on the set of modern independent Orthodox Patriarchates. Miskin 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Oppose for the obvious reasons.

Clearly the split is unnecessary. If I understand the edit war aright, one of the points of contention is whether various other national history categories besides "History of Greece" (e.g. "History of Albania") ought to appear at the bottom of the page. This might be worth discussing -- for example, I seem to recall that somewhere in my library there's a book called "Byzantine Butrint." --Javits2000 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against this practice as long as it's applied on similar articles. Miskin 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cf. Austrian empire, and the categories appended thereto. So far as I know there's no standard practice regulating the format of "empire" entries; no legal argument against being progressive if we agree on it. --Javits2000 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true that there is a cultural, political and even geographical distinction between Eastern Roman and Byzantine history (namely during the 7th century), and eventhough most scholars acknowledge it and mention it, they keep treating it on the same topic. In fact all of what we regard today as "periods of Byzantine history" differ from each other, and we could easily come up with POV arguments to treat them separately. However they are all for numerous reasons included in the subject of the Byzantine Empire. Miskin 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it appears User:Mursili was a sockpuppet of some banned user. I guess now reverting his edits becomes an obligation. Miskin 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Antioch

Well, thanks to my stubbed Siege of Antioch (1084), you are gonna have to change the map at 1081 to include the fact that the city remained in Byzantine hands until then. Although having made this request, I confess that I forgot where i found this info!! Well, I think it was at wikipedia, or another internet source. So either the stubbed battle must go, or the map be changed. Tourskin.

Interesting. Britannica, s.v. Antioch, gives 1084 as well -- although how much of the surrounding territory remained in Byz. hands, I have no idea.--Javits2000 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably as much as in Trapezounta. Miskin 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should investigate the issue. Lateron it (the needed changes of the maps) could be added to the improvement-list above. Eventually someone will improve the maps. Flamarande 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tourskin 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the map, but how do i upload it? Tourskin.

You can upload images in the Upload file section found by the link right below the search field in the Toolbox section to the left on the wiki-skin.--Dryzen 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks Tourskin 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now why is it deleted? Its just the same map as before, except I edited it to add Antioch. What's this about? Why are people simply deleting maps without discussing it first? And people call me hard nosed. Can anyone tell me, without being insulting or personal, why I should not return the map? Tourskin 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because you forgot to specify a copyright status for the map when you uploaded it. This has happened to me before too. Your map was fine. It's just a wikipedia policy to delete files without a licence. Just give it a licence when you upload it, and it'll be fine. For now, I've restored the old 1081 map, but I hope you'll be able to fix your updated version of it soon. Bigdaddy1204 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

byzantine empire infobox is now up for deletion

here - since 11 feb. It should have been notified here I think - to be replaced by "former countries" box. Johnbod 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperium Romanorum

I'd like to point out that Basileia Rhomaion is not a direct translation of Imperium Romanorum. Basileia means 'Kingdom' (regnum), Greek for 'Empire' (Imperium) is autocratoria. Miskin 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, did this distinction between basileia and autokratoria exist at the time the term was invented? As far as I understood, the Eastern Roman emperors did call themselves basileus, which in that context definitely does not mean merely "king". Iblardi 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Iblardi but I don't want to talk with a banned user's sockpuppet. Miskin 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Iblardi 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Or should I say User:Greier. Miskin 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi is correct. Slac speak up! 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but he's a sockpuppet and I don't want to enforce his activity. For what it matters (response to Salc), "autocrator" appears for the first time in Thucydides but not in a political context. It is first used as a direct translation of "Imperium" in the work "Roman History" by Cassius Dio, a Roman who wrote in Greek. Then it becomes a standardised term for "Empire" in the Greek language of the following periods, including the literary variety of Byzantine Greeks. In ancient Greek, "basileus" is used for both King and Emperor, as there is no real distinction between the two. In later Greek, 'basileus' literally means 'King' and 'basileia' means 'reign'. In other words, "basileus" was adopted by Heraclius and used thereafter by Greek writers as a title equivalent to 'Caesar' (Greek Kaisar), and not in the literal meaning of 'King'. This use is equivalent to the metaphorical uses of many Greek words, such as 'Despotes' or even the state's political name 'Rhomaioi'. In medieval Greek literature we often notice phrases such as "rhomaion autokratorias Basileus" (Basileus of the Roman Empire), which makes it clear that in that context it doesn't mean "King" and that "autocratoria" translates to "empire". What I mean is that "basileia Rhomaion" sounds like original research to me, derived from the Emperor title 'Basileus'. Unless there is a source this should be changed to "Rhomaion autokratoria". 'Basileus' on the other hand is not a translation of Imperator nor Caesar. It is a whole new title chosen by Heraclius during his reforms. Miskin 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. A TLG search reveals countless -- or rather, I got tired of counting -- occurrences of ἡ βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, the rather more elegant ἡ τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλεία, and any number of other allowable, and indeed also impermissible, syntactical variants, in such unimpeachably "Byzantine" sources as Psellos, Anna Komnena, Kedrenos, Konstantinos Porphyrogenitos, Georgios Monachos, Skylitzes, Symeon "the Logothete," Niketas Choniates, Pachymeres, Kantakuzenos, Gennadios, Theophanes, the continuators of Theophanes.... and that's just searching for the nominative. αὐτοκρατορία (LSJ: "sovereignty") appears with Ῥωμαίων but thrice, and that only in oblique cases. --Javits2000 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did my research in TLG as well, although I didn't check with "rhomaion basileia", I just verified that "rhomaion autocratoria" existed. If you think that 'Basileia' is more popular than 'autocraria' then it shouldn't be claimed that it's a direct translation from 'Imperium'. That was my initial point. Miskin 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The most precise translation of "basileia" would be "hereditary monarchy" (LSJ); and such was the LRE, at least in the ideal. In any case languages function through use, not through dictionaries, and strive toward mutual comprehensibility. If speakers of Latin refer to something as X, and speakers of Greek refer to it as Y, then X serves as the best translation of Y. In other words, there's a difference between direct translation and literal translation: "ich machte ihn zur Sau" is a direct, if not a literal translation, of "I lit into him." --Javits2000 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LSJ is a dictionary of Ancient Greek and gives correctly the ancient definition of the word. However it applies to an epoch where Greek had no specific word for "Empire". The problem is that both basileia and autocratoria have a direct Latin translation: 'Regnum' and 'Imperium'. Therefore it has to be proved that 'basileia' is in some contexts synonymous to 'autocratoria' in order to retain the "direct translation" claim, or keep 'basileia' instead of 'autocratoria'. Miskin 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, the burden of proof lies on you; please, inform us on which authority rests the original claim that "autokratoria" was "the direct [sic] Latin translation" of Lt. imperium. It certainly doesn't serve that function in Cassius Dio, as claimed -- he mostly used ἀρχή. It might be wortwhile, if only for the sake of curiosity, to check du Cange, still our only true dictionary of medieval Greek, which will likely supply a number of possible Latin translations of basileia, autokratoria, or whatever else you might be wondering about. (A truly subtle intellect, du Cange -- to grasp that for any given word there might be a range of possible translations!)

But in terms of usage, it's beside the point; to return to my analogy above, there's a literal English translation of the German "Sau" (sow); which by no means renders "I made him into a sow" a direct translation of the expression quoted. And if that seems an absurd parallel, consider what I must think of this argument. --Javits2000 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ἀρχή in that context means authority/rule of the autocratoria. A passage from Psellos goes "Περὶ τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ. Παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ὁ Κομνηνὸς, ἀνὴρ ἐν πᾶσι δραστήριος", what more proof do you need that 'autocratoria' is also used for Empire? Cassius Dio's usage and a dictionary of modern Greek make a good argument to support 'autocratoria=Empire'. I still haven't seen an authority which defines 'basileia' as the correct translation. A medieval Greek dictionary might not do the trick, unless it deals with the literary language. Do you have access to such a source? Miskin 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Greek was a literary language, more or less. Anyway, all this is besides the point. Evidence that αὐτοκρατορία "is also used" to describe the rule of the Empire is not evidence that the best translation of Imperium Romanorum is not ἡ βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων. The evidence that it is comes from the wealth of Byzantine writers who use the phrase as the standard way to describe the entity which they believed was the continuation of the original Empire. Slac speak up! 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put. Two loose ends

• there is a dictionary of medieval Greek (literary, of course -- hardly anything else survives!): it's du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyon, 1688 -- many reprints thereafter). Whether out of laziness or actual preference, most Byzantinists, including those outside of the English-speaking world, will just use LSJ.
• Please, when you post polytonic Greek, use the "Polytonic" tag (see at end of Gk. characters in symbol list). It will thereby become legible. --Javits2000 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Will it be hard for you to look it up Javits? Miskin 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a classic case of differing translation successes. Where one is looking fidelity and the other transparency (if I may borrow our own article'S terminology). Both good measures of success but both creating differing forms of products. Thus you may both be defending correct translations, but both done with and acheiving different goals (definition of successful translation rather than some dark plan). I see nothing wrong and would even promote mention of these findings in the article as to present a well rounded view of Byzantine culture and the difficulties in studying the brilliant civilisation. In this it could possibly be worth while ot explain the reasons for hte findings as well as the mroe preveilant usages (ie, is one more used in common speach, more in use prior or after a certain periode, following a literary movement adn the such). --Dryzen 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the fact remains that 'autocratoria' has a single definition (Empire), while 'basileia' has the double meaning of 'Empire' and 'Kingdom' as it did in ancient Greek. Miskin 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"A passage from Psellos goes "Περὶ τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ. Παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ὁ Κομνηνὸς, ἀνὴρ ἐν πᾶσι δραστήριος", what more proof do you need that 'autocratoria' is also used for Empire?"

Interestingly, this citation, if anything, proves the exact opposite of your point. In the second line, βασιλείαν would translate as imperium (power, empire) in Latin, whereas the chapter title merely reads "On Comnenus' [supreme] emperorship". Iblardi 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin you seem to derive some pleasure in perceiving that I'm against you. Did I contest "that 'autocratoria' has a single definition (Empire), while 'basileia' has the double meaning of 'Empire' and 'Kingdom' as it did in ancient Greek"? Nope. Reading this though, does make me wonder as to what people think this present discussion is about. Was it not about the validity of terms to present the name of the Byzantine Empire as read/said in its time? Please inlighten me as to the enjeux of the discussion.--Dryzen 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Liudrpand of Cremona had this to say in his journal on his visit to Constantinople: "On the sixth of June, which was the Saturday before Pentecost, I was brought before the emperor's brother Leo, marshal of the court and chancellor; and there we tired ourselves with a fierce argument over your imperial title. He called you not emperor, which is Basileus in his tongue, but insultingly Rex, which is king in ours." It seems clear to him at least that Basileus is synonymous to Emperor.Zambetis 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I clicked on this page since it was today's featured article. Knowing very little about the Byzantine Empire myself, I was distressed to see that the lead was not a summary of the article. If someone reads no more than the lead or stops reading the page before the end, that reader has not yet received the essential information he or she should have. Also, rather than presenting multiple theories regarding the beginning of the empire in the lead, I would think that one would want to be as clear as possible; the rest of the article is the place for equivocation and explanation, in my opinion. Awadewit 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although you're probably right, it's not that easy to summarise 1000 years of intense history in one or two paragraphs. The late Byzantine Empire had a very different culture from the early one, an ancient Roman imperial steate developed into a Greek monarchy. Mentions of the Empire's exonyms such as Imperium Graecorum and the reforms of Heraclius aim to imply this transition. The current lead focuses on the early period where the Empire is essentially a Greek-speaking Roman Empire. I would also like it to be more representative of the Empire's 1000 of history, but most editors prefer to focus on the Roman element of the early period, as well as the Roman political continuity. Miskin 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== BOO! put the picture of stone double headed eagle holding the orb and the cross up somewhere in the article..the one that used to be in the info box

Putting a summary in the lead is indead a challange, one needs simply look at the leads in other long lasting and evolving states to realise that its not a common occurance. A summary would be good yes, but deciding what goes in could take a while. Just the begining of the empire is a point of contention! Including knowledge of passed discussions compromise is a hard acheivement but I'dd be willing to work towards it as time permits with similar editors willing to work out the knots.--Dryzen 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm wondering if the predecessor/successor fields aren't getting needlessly cluttered. We're now to understand that the Ostrogothic Kingdom was in some way a predecessor (presumably because of the sixth-century reconquest; but on those grounds we'ld have to include the Vandals & Visigoths as well...); and that the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were successors, even though the former outlasted the Byz. Empire by a mere seven years, and the latter by eight. Here again, if we were to be consistent, and add everyone who ended up with a bit of former Byz. territory over the course of the empire, that list would look much longer still....

In any case none of the three are represented by an icon, with the result that the top of the infobox is just getting filled up with question marks. Would it not be more elegant to limit it to the Romans on the one end, and the Ottomans on the other? --Javits2000 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the additions of Morea and Trebizond. They intended (at least in theory) to continue the Byzantine Empire without the great City and survived after its fall. Maybe the Republic of Venice should also be added. She controlled the Ionian islands, Crete and at some point under Morossini even peninsular Greece. Miskin 12:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd move to remove the Ostrogoths, they never preceedded the Byzantines. As to the Successors I can agree to place the remenant territories of Morea and Trebizond. Venice on the other hand, no, although they kept some territory it was generally kept at that, unlike the Ottoman whom assimilated portions of Byzantime culture: Administrative, Engineering and Legal fields to name a few. Of it would be more elegant to keep it to the formula Rome-Byzantine-Ottoman and the greyed flags with question marks aren't very elegent of themselves, but elegance isn't our priority is it?--Dryzen 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always perceived the succession as a geographical concept, otherwise I'd think the Tsardom of Russia was the unarguably true cultural successor state after the fall of Morea and Trebizond. The Ottoman Empire must stay as the undisputed geographical successor, and also as the "container" of Byzantine culture in its 'Rum' millet. So Morea, Trebizond and the Ottoman Empire should be enough. Miskin 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough -- I've removed the Ostrogoths. Trabzon can limp along for another decade or so.--Javits2000 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

550 map

On the map showing Byzantium around 550, the small tip of Northern Africa (around the city of Septem/Ceuta) as well as Italy north of the Po are not included, although both regions were part of the empire at that time. Maybe this could be fixed? Iblardi 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the 1081 map needs to be replaced. Bigdaddy1204 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what the map needs and I will have it ready. Just give a message back cos I don't really check this huge page that often.Tourskin 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have it but it won't bloody let me upload it right.

It's there alright. Looks good. Iblardi 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Capital in infobox

Someone added Nicaea, Trebizond and Mystras under "capital" in the infobox. Isn't that a bit ... strange? On the other hand, if they are to stay, then a case could be made for including Thessalonica as well, another short-lived successor state capital (from 1224 on). Iblardi 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think they should be found there, although all at one point a capital of a Byzantine state only Nicomedia and Constantinople where ruled by the Emperor. Mystras, Nicaea, Trebizond and Thesselonica where as you put it more successor states than the state itself, therefore not the capitols of the empire. Moving back to Nicomedia, I could see it having a mention as a capitol due to its status as prime adminastrive center for the Eastern Roman Empire (Therefore Byzantine Empire) roughly from 286 till 330 (Diocletian to Constantine). Any other thoughts?-- Dryzen 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with the inclusion of Nicaea, Trabzon, & Mystras either, although I'll admit that the fine points of late Byz. history elude / bore me. As for Nicomedia, although I can see the argument, a) it seems a bit early for "Byzantine" and b) it could open the floodgates to all the other tetrarchic capitals / residences / etc., of which there were a few. Better to say Byzantium starts when Byzantium becomes Constantinople. --Javits2000 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be three against and none for, I'll remouve the namings and shoudl anyone think they deserved to be placed in make a saying of it here first. As to the tetrarchy I can conceid that none should be named, for none legally existed, the Administrative center was the emperor and wherever he chose to reside. As to the beginings of the empire I find the divisions to become evidant under Diocletian and follow Treadgold's notion of 284 as a starting point even if it isn't the main notion presented in the article. But I'm not debating that here, just marking an opinion.--Dryzen 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Constantinople was not the capital city of the Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 1261, it was the capital city of the Catholic Latin Empire.

Nicaea (capital city of the Empire of Nicaea) was the Byzantine capital city between 1204 and 1261.

BTW, Nicaea (İznik) and Nicomedia (İzmit) are two different cities in Bithynia (northwestern Anatolia).

Nicomedia served as a Roman capital city (between 286 and 330) while Nicaea served as a Byzantine capital city (between 1204 and 1261).

And, without Mystras and Trebizond, the article cannot continue to argue that "the fall of Constantinople wasn't the definitive end and that the Byzantine Empire continued to function for several more years without its historic capital city" (more explicitly, this definition refers to Mystras and Trebizond).

If Milan (Mediolanum), Ravenna, Nicomedia and Constantinople are also accepted as "Roman" capital cities (not just "Rome"), or Bursa (Prusa) and Edirne (Adrianople) are also "Ottoman" capital cities (not just Constantinople/Istanbul), then what's this "Constantinople obsession" in defining the Byzantine Empire?

Nicaea, Trebizond and Mystras are also legitimate capital cities of the Byzantine realm, ruled by the same Comnenus and Palaeologus dynasties which also ruled in Constantinople. KeremTuncay 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to answer in parts, firstly Nicaea and Nicomedia are indeed two different cities. I dont see why its needed to state this fact as a BTW? I may have misread but no one was confoudning the two here.

Followingly, the remaining states of Byzantine heritage seem to have taken no clear measure of successorship. Therefore they are more properly addressed as successor states than the contignuation of the state itself. Akin to the political entities that arrose after the "official" fall of the western empire.

Lastly, what KeremTuncay has labeled as Constantinople Obscession, has more to do with a lack of normalisation in wikipedia than actual polisphilia. I cannot speak forJavits2000 but my own intentions where to keep the infobox consise and as free as possible from sources of ambiguity and contention. Considering that the article takes the norm of 330 as the starting date, Nicomedia thus can no longer be included without some further changes and surely discussions arrising. While on the subject of ambiguity, Nicaea cannot be placed ahead of the other successor states for the piriode of the Latin Empire, since a number of the other ones could just as well of taken back the capitol, that is without delving within wich had the more important of claim. On this it should be noted the importance that was placed on Constatinople for political heirship.--Dryzen 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Nicaea alone (as is the present situation) also seems questionable. Defining Nicaea as the Byzantine capital in the period from 1204 to 1261 would i.m.o. be a form of justification from hindsight. It was by no means certain that the Nicaeans would eventually recapture Constantinople. The leaders of the other major successor state, Epirus, claimed the imperial title as well, and its power was only broken after the battle of Klokotnitsa in 1230. At any rate, there was no such thing as a unified Byzantine empire between 1204 and 1261 - only a group of successor states. This is why I feel uneasy about including any of their particular capitals in the infobox. I think it is at least debatable whether any other cities than Constantinople itself should be listed.

I find there is also an ambiguity in the term "capital city", which could, on the other hand, be used to justify sticking to Constantinople even for the period. Wikipedia says:

"In politics, a capital (also called capital city or political capital (...) is the principal city or town associated with a country's government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law."

On the other hand, in some countries, the Netherlands, for example, the capital city is not the residence of the government (Amsterdam vs. The Hague). Taking such cases into account, Constantinople may (arguably) still be called the capital of the Byzantine Empire from 1204 to 1261, even though the Byzantine government is not seated there. It could be considered a capital under foreign occupation and with its government in exile. But I admit this does not make a particularly strong case. (Capital of a non-existent empire? Hmmm...) Better stick to just Constantinople, then, and maybe leave a gap for the period from 1204 to 1261. Iblardi 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and take Nicaea out. The Empire of Nicaea is simply not the same political entity as the Byzantine Empire. Iblardi 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User KeremTuncay, based on the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect consensus alone, Nicaea should not be included. As far as I know, the Empire of Nicaea (I know Nicaea is a city, I was using a pars pro toto in my edit summary) is never labelled "Byzantine Empire" in the literature on the subject, it is simply called "Empire of Nicaea", alongside with the "Despotate of Epirus" (as we do, see for instance the map in the article itself). At the very least inclusion of Nicaea is debatable and therefore not desirable at this point. Iblardi 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi interesting way to make a conclusion. Seems like the current majority sticks to Constantinople, with similar reasons. Since the Successors where so adamant on taking back Constatinople, the ambiguous "capital under foreign occupation and with its government in exile" dose seem to fit the mentality of the generation.--Dryzen 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

How come the bronze star doesn´t appear on the top-right corner; this artcicle is listed as an FA and to me it looks perfect, I think it is the best wikipedia article ive seen so far... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Successor to Byzantine Empire

After the fall of Constantinople, members of the Palaiologus family continued to claim the title of basileus, and in 1503, in accordance to the will of Andreas Palaiologos, the last Palaiologid pretender, the claims passed Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Thus, the kings of Spain were the legal successors to the Byzantine Emperors. I think this is an important enough fact to warrant mention in the article.

No signature, dosen't bode well. I'dd read before that this partucular trade was made more out of a need for money (selling the title) than any major succession. And as said we are left with a rememant line... Still sourced, I see no problem with incorporating this information. --Dryzen 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Name Change

The article was recently moved from "Byzantine Empire" to "Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire," apparently without discussion on this Talk page. Now, I don't have any particular reason to oppose this name change (And, personally, I actually prefer the title of "Eastern Roman" rather than "Byzantine," since I've always felt its continuation of the Roman Empire, rather than its creation of a new state, is never adequately represented), but aren't we supposed to discuss such changes to the article on the Talk page? Redirect links need to be changed, the article itself might need to be altered, and there are other results that need to be taken into consideration. Shouldn't we talk about this? JBK405 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was really surprised there was no discussion about the move. I don't particularly mind the change either, but as JBK405 has said, these things really should be discussed first. People should be given a chance to agree or disagree with an important change like this. Bigdaddy1204 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is a misguided application of WP:IAR. However this is a chance to go through a formal page naming discussion. I for one think the current name is ugly with the parentheses and all. As for the "Eastern Roman" vs "Byzantine" dilemma, while my heart and reason votes for the former, I think the "most common name" principle dictates the latter. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think the page move should have been discussed first. The current title is rather cumbersome, and as far as I understand the naming conventions, alternate names for something shouldn't be listed in the title of an article. This article needs to be moved to either Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, and I can see already that at least one double redirect caused by the move wasn't fixed. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 13:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add my "Amen" to this discussion. One or the other, not both. The new name is too unwieldy. Should the article on Bill Clinton be moved to William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton? Yahnatan 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it short due to time constraint to post: No questions asked, if one wants to move the article one must discuss. Best way to keep things organised, civil and its Wiki policy. Second, without consideration for my own personnal preferences, Byzantine Empire is the most common name and its usage is a good compromise title for the possible heated debat on namming such a source of hotly debated subjects (One need only look in the archives to see the editwars and what-have-you). --Dryzen 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I've requested that this article be moved back to its original title while a possible new name is being discussed, to fix double redirects and broken links. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 13:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag problems?

Is anyone else having problems seeing the Byzantine Flag? The only time it was up was when the page had been briefly moved. Is it just my CPU? Yahnatan 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The flag shows up consistantly for me. Any other wikipidians?--Dryzen 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no problems either. Iblardi 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two basic undisputable facts

• Nicaea was the interim capital city of the Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 1261 (see the Fourth Crusade and the Empire of Nicaea)

• Latin remained as an official language of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire until it was removed by Heraclius and Greek became the sole official language.

Any person who disputes these two basic facts is either history-illiterate, or blindly nationalist, or a romantic.

I am powerless to educate every single person on the planet regarding Byzantine history. And, honestly, I don't care.

Those who are blinded by illiteracy, ultranationalism or romanticism can continue to revert data. Those who know the truth will keep knowing it, and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource, anyway. KeremTuncay 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should support your claims with sources before starting to accuse the whole community here of being "history-illiterate", something which I find rather impolite. Iblardi 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For contestation number one I point above to the discussion on capitols. For the second I suggest reading the long battles on Greek-Latin in the Archives. You find this later a long and heated debate with multiple strong and week supports.

As to historic facts, the first is not as cemented as you would beleive, again mentioned several discussions above. For the second I see very few opponents or mentions to the contrary and thus wonder why it had to be brought up at all. In the infobox it is mentioned Latin for the earlier centuries and the article should reflect this. It did last I read it a while back.--Dryzen 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Army numbers

With an army that never exceded 140,000? At one point in time, the Byzantines had at leats 20 or so themes,e ach giving 9,600 soldiers - thats 198,000 men. Of course, this was no standing army.68.6.239.36 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this passage needs some clarity. Should we take the Empire's starting point as 284, it once had a total exceeding 300 000 men as the Eastern Roman Empire. In 840, it maintained (in on paper (payroll) at least) 96 000 Thematic soldier, plus 24 000 Tagmatic professionnals and an added 34 200 oarsmen, for a total of 154 200 men under its military command. Of course not counting naval personnel but counting the marines, that would be 120 000 men, a nuanced army not exceeding 140 000. Still, the details should be mentioned with such a passage. Such as between 600 and 1453 the army never exceded 140,000. Being careful to consider army as the land forces alone and not the whole of the military.

As to the number 198 000 that is a goodly portion off in the Theme system. Theoretically each administrative Theme should of been a certain number but all to often this was not the case. To take the count of 840 again, the Anatolic Theme numbered at about 15 000 men, while the Thessalonica furnished 2 000. The largest Themes ( Anatolic, Armeniac, Bucellarian and Thracesian) where administativly divided into Turmas similarly sized to other Themes. Over time the yard stick for regiments varied greatly to say the least. --Dryzen 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is no-one really knows and given the tendency of ancient & medieval writers to exaggerate troop numbers even were there figures that could be quoted they would be pretty doubtful. Probably best to just omit this one. Roydosan 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't 140,000 troops still alot? I mean the average European battle in the Medieval times would have scarcely exceeded 10,000 men on either side. I know that in the position Byzantine has, the West and East has to be defended so lots of troops are needed due to the constant state of warfare against the Arabs from the 7th to 12th centuries, but 140,000 is not a number to be taken lightly. Correct me if I am wrong however, I only assume this by looking at other armies at the time.Tourskin.

Did they keep Roman knowledge?

Did the Byzantines keep all, or any, of the knowledge of the Roman empire, such as...

• How to build Roman roads?
• Roman military tactics?
• Roman weaponry?
• The ability to make frescoes?
• Anything else?

The Byzantines lost the ability to create impressive works of sculpture after the Iconoclastic period in the 8th century. However, their mosaics and paintings continued to develop, and attained great artistic achievement.

As for the roads, I believe most of the old Roman road network largely disappeared after the 6th century, but there were effective military routes in Asia Minor from the 7th century onwards, and the imperial postal service was always maintained. Certain key routes were always maintained.

On the subject of Roman weaponry and tactics - the Byzantines were masters of strategy and military tactics for centuries. In this area, they very much maintained and valued their Roman heritage. Their military equipment, meanwhile, varied over the centuries, but in times of strength such as the later 10th century, the Byzantines deployed formiddable armies every bit the equal of their Roman predecessors.

I hope that helps to answer your questions :) Bigdaddy1204 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well hang on a little, they changed their strategy completely, from Roman infantry to Eastern Cavalry. This is significant because the Byzantiens used Cavalry militia raised from free farmers. The military was substantially different from the Roman times, check out Byzantine military for more. The infantry had a more or less demoted job that the Cavalry would have had in the Roman times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

This distinction shouldn't be made too strictly, though. The Romans had learned from their wars with the Parthians, and the change from an infantry-based Roman army to a cavalry-based one was well underway in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, when the army was divided into mobile field troops and more-or-less stationary border units. This was true for the West as well as for the East, and I don't see why one system or strategy is less "Roman" and more "Byzantine" than the other. Iblardi 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Romans became far less aggressive and more diplomacy orientated. They saw war as physical diplomacy.Tourskin 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the Byzantines in the Medieval period and comparing them with Roman Antiquity. The Roman army in the 2nd Century AD was a very different one from that in the 7th century (with horse archers, infantry and kataphraktoi raised from citizens as opposed to mercenaries) and even different from the 4th century which incorporated lots of Germanic mercenaries and cavalry mercenaries such as the Huns. Tourskin.

Hey all

Anyone care to give me a hand on the Economic history of Greece page? Add a bit about the Byzantine period if you could.--NeroDrusus 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very long

This page is currently 105kb long. As Wikipedia:Article size points out, such a long article "almost certainly should be divided up". As it is a featured article, I'm hesitant to make drastic changes without getting input.

By far the biggest portion of this article is devoted to the history of the empire; perhaps it would be more manageable to relocate most of this information over to a new page, such as History of the Byzantine Empire. The history information on this page could then be collapsed into a single top-level header, with sub-headers (consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing their topics) for each of the time periods that currently occupy a top-level header, from Origin to The Fall of. This would give more breathing room for the article to hold more information on related topics besides history, such as culture, relation to nearby countries, and the information currently under Legacy.

Does the above proposal, to move most of the history content into History of the Byzantine Empire, sound reasonable? Or perhaps only some of the largest sections, such as for each of the two dynasties, and the decline (and aftermath?), should each merely get their own article? --BlackTerror 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wise to raise the issue here first, BlackTerror.

This has already been the subject of lengthy discussion; it was eventually decided some months ago that, based on common practice among other wikipedia articles, Byzantine Empire should be left in its present form. See the discussion at the archive here [3], from ‘Bravely getting nowhere’ onwards. I hope this helps; it would take forever for me to go in and fish out all the respective arguments for and against, otherwise!

Your question has raised another point, however. Personally, I think that this article is mostly very good, but some sections really need attention. In particular, the sections on the period after 1204 are woefully inadequate, and need serious re-writing. Unfortunately, I had attempted to make progress with this myself, but my edits were consistently reverted by an editor who was determined to resist all change.

To get to the point: I don't think it is necessary to 'make drastic changes' to the organisation of the article. What I personally would consider much more valuable would be a determined effort to clean up our existing material, mostly concentrating on the period after 1204 as I have suggested. If only I had the knowledge, the time and the will to make a second attempt, then I would do it myself. But summer exams rule out that possibility. Therefore, I request that a collective effort be made by everyone with an interest in this article, for the good of all. It really is about time something should be done to give this article a proper coverage of the later period (even putting it into good English would be a start!) Bigdaddy1204 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of vast sections of text

It has just come to my attention that vast sections of text have been removed from this article without warning and without comment. This is unacceptable. In particular, enormous quantities of well sourced information on the Komnenian period and John II have simply been removed. It is outrageous that this was not even raised for discussion on the talk page of the article. This article DOES NOT belong to one editor alone. If you want to make such drastic changes, you cannot simply delete entire sections 1000s of words long without so much as a note of explanation. I find it extremely disturbing that someone could have such stunning lack of respect for the work of others.

I am restoring the removed text at once. If you have a problem with it, or you want to condense the section, then DISCUSS IT HERE FIRST. Any further removals of text without consultation are illegal, and will be reverted. Bigdaddy1204 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bigdaddy. I don't think there's any suggestion that one person owns this article. I know for a fact that there has been lengthy, repeated discussion on this page about the need to trim the Komnemian section. I know because I have participated in such discussions myself. Please take my assurances that this is nothing to do with a lack of respect or acting "illegally". The text was removed because it was in the wrong place. This article is not a history of the Byzantine Empire, it is a summary, with links to more specific content. That's why we have a number of purpose built articles, dealing with battles, empires, the army, and other topics of the period. I also encourage the creation of a general purpose History of the Byzantine Empire article where this sort of content properly belongs. I stand by my edits: the informational content remains high; extraneous material - i.e. the interpretations of historians, rather than matters of historical fact - have been trimmed. I encourage you to add to the relevant articles on individual emperors. I believe I was quite right to remove the text that I have, and I believe there is a broad consensus among editors that the detailed material on the Komnenoi should be placed in a relevant context. Slac speak up! 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I do agree this article should only hold a summary of Byzantine History, with links to more detailed articles, like Bigdaddy1204, any drastic changes should be discussed first. Discussion on relevancy of remouval, what is to be remouved and what is to be done with the cuttings. --Dryzen 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dryzen, I respectfully disagree with your take. The wiki principle and "being bold" mean that content of an article - particularly an extensive, important one - is going to be in constant flux. With a featured article, care should be taken to preserve its essential contents; that's why I spent quite a lot of time in my edit excising only what I considered strictly unnecessary for a summary and leaving in quite a lot that I felt was perhaps over-detailed and opinionated. Furthermore, the wiki principle dictates that it's not my job as an editor to find a home for excised text - the history function works for that. If text is unnecessary, as has been pointed out on this talk page, and as is clear in any case from common sense and the overall article requirements, it doesn't have to be thrashed out and mulled over in detail, in particular if it means coming to a sub-optimal "compromise" that limits potential improvements to the extent of editors' patience in dealing with intransigence.

Wikipedia is not a negotiated truth - it is a collaborative effort to build a high-quality encyclopedia. High-quality articles are the most important principle.

Bigdaddy, I am very sorry if my edit has irritated you but I still think it is right. If you feel that there is anything unreasonable about the content of the edit itself, please address that and we can move forward from there. Slac speak up! 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand from where I'm comming with this, but its the idea of the deletion rather than the removed segments themselves I'm concerned over. You spoke of collaborative, going ahead without telling anyone your cleaning up an article isn't very team oriented, I'm sure you can agree. The whole point of giving a little notice is not to irritate the editor or editors who's work you'll be over hauling. As well, the mention may gather similar minded editors who'dd give you a hand, perhaps even push for homes for the fully detailed information and thus truly cutting into the mire.

As well who's to say its unnecessary; to me, to him or to you it might be but to him, to them it might not and thus starts reverting "wars". The point of a notice is to go over things like that. Being bold, yes... that one's caused a lot of problems in some articles. A good and a bad since it gets things done, just not always in the best manner. --Dryzen 13:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Currency

Does someone have a citation for the assertion that "The Byzantine solidus was the internationally preferred currency for 700 years, only gradually being superseded by Italian currencies (such as the Venetian ducat) after 1204."? I was reading up on the issue (so that I could hopefully cite it) in Peter Spufford's Money and its use in medieval Europe (1988: Cambridge University Press), but Spufford seems to take the opposite view, that Byzantine coin was in no significant way circulating in the West after the Early Middle Ages. The story of Western currency begins with the gradual replacement of the solidus by the triens, the the third part of the solidus. "Solidi ceased to be struck by the Franks, except at Marseilles, and no solidi at all were struck by the Visigoths from the reign of Leovigild (568-86) at the latest. In seventh- and eighth- century Italy too, it was trientes that the Lombard kings struck from their mints in the Po valley and Tuscany." p. 18. Throughout this decline in actual circulation, however, the solidus "remained as a unit of account" and money continued to be "expressed in solidi in codes of law, and in land transactions, but in practice the word 'solidus' had come to mean not one actual gold coin, but a unit of three tremisses or trientes." p. 19. The triens, in turn, begins to decline in favour of the denarius and the penny. p. 22. "When gold coinage finally disappeared outside Italy, western Europe was left with a new system of coinage, based on the silver penny, which was entirely unlike either that which survived in the east, in the Byzantine Empire, or that which existed in the later Roman Empire...The disappearance of the coinage systems of antiquity, like the disappearance of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, took many generations. It was none the less complete." p. 26. "The silver penny, or denier...was, for over five centuries, not merely the characteristic coin of western Europe, but virtually the only coin in use." p. 27. Is this what the article means, when it says that the solidus was the "preferred currency"? I apologize if I'm being unduly assertive, as this isn't my area of expertise. I should hope that Spufford isn't asserting a minority viewpoint, but then, I can never be sure. I hope you'll all be able to clear this up for me, and provide the article with the most authoritative information available! Many thanks for having taken the time to read this paragraph, and good luck in the FAR! Geuiwogbil 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmn. It appears that I've found an appropriate cite.

• Lopez, Robert Sabatino (1951). "The Dollar of the Middle Ages". The Journal of Economic History. 11 (3): 209–234. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "The gold money of the Byzantine Empire 'is accepted everywhere from end to end of the earth. It is admired by all men and in all kingdoms, because no kingdom has a currency that can be compared to it.'...The gold nomisma (or bezant, as the Westerners later called it) was as peerless as the sovereign whose effigy it bore...To the medieval world the nomisma was money par excellence and the highest embodiment of wealth. It was eagerly accepted from England to India as an instrument of payment as good as gold itself; it made the Byzantine people an object of envy to its neighbors; and it caused the Byzantine Emperor to be looked upon as the greatest dispenser of riches to anyone fortunate enough to be his friend."
• "It took the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 and the long unhappy period that followed to bring about the doom of the bezant...In 1252 Genoa, which was on bad terms with the emperors of Nicaea and needed more currency for its booming economy, issued a gold coin of its own. Florence and other Western states soon followed the Genoese example. Their independent currencies of pure gold gradually displaced the bezant in international trade."

That seems to approximate what is said in the article, no? Apologies for having brought up the other info; I was just too ignorant of the issue to have been wise, and too hasty to have been prudent. Again, apologies for having disturbed you all. Geuiwogbil 03:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No need tofor apologies, if the article couldn't properly explain itself then the problem is in that and not the reader. Thank you for your sources and your dedication to understanding.--Dryzen 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it might be wiser to follow Spufford than Lopez. The Lopez article is a classic, but I seem to recall that it's been largely superseded... although where to find a good discussion of the current understanding is another question. It might be worth trying Michael Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (1985) or Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy (2002). In any case let's leave the question open for now. --Javits2000 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1045 map

The following book:

Great Ages of Man : Byzantium

shows a map proving that the Byzantines conquered parts of Sicily and so I made and uploaded a new map into the article showing these post-Basil II conquests. Page 61 of the book if you have it, which being many years old now you probably won't. So let me know what anyone thinks.Tourskin 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have it actually. :) Part of Sicily was apparently re-conquered by George Maniaces around 1040.[4] Iblardi 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So without furtherado... shall we upload it? I don't see it anywhere in the article.Tourskin 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Style and content of the article, and what Byzantine Empire should be

I do not like the style and content of Byzantine Empire. I had not read the article for a long time until today, but I have now and I don't like what I see. It is written in a very dull, dry, uninteresting and academic fashion, which drains all the interest and life out of the subject. Byzantine history is here presented in a way that utterly alienates the drama and fascination of the period. In short, the article has become a victim to lifeless academic detachment, abandoning completely its connection with the heroism and drama of the events and persons it describes.

I must confess I find this disheartening. My entire contribution to this article over the last two years has been to add more detail and content to the article, and to write it in such a way that it is interesting and brings the subject to life. It seems now that everything I have ever worked for has been utterly undone.

This is not my article. It does not belong to me, or to anyone else individually. But, as the contributor of over 9,000 words to this article, I feel I have a right to at least express my concern at the direction it is taking.

At the heart of the problem is the issue of what Byzantine Empire should be. There are those who would think that this article should be a very short, very concise summary of Byzantine history, written in an entirely detached and lifeless way. But this article could be so much more (and in the past, it was so much more). There was a time when this article provided some of the best information to be found anywhere on the internet on Byzantium. I believe that this article could be one of Wikpedia's finest.

But for that to happen, there needs to be a decision. Are we going to try to keep the size of the article down to 32kb, or whatever the supposed 'limit' is, in slavish devotion to what I consider arbitrary and pointless so-called 'standards' for Featured Articles, or are we going to cast aside the shackles of spineless conventionalism, and return Byzantine Empire to its rightful place as the greatest article in wikipedia? A discussion on the core concept of this article is long overdue. Right now it seems that changes, many of which I strongly disagree with, are being made all over the place with no discussion on this discussion page. The time has come to discuss the future of the article. Upon these discussions will depend the fate of all I and everyone else who has ever worked on this article have worked for. State your views; Byzantine Empire needs you! Bigdaddy1204 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Being well over a year since I've read the article I'm certain it had indeed changed. Not having much time, to my chagrin, to properly play a role in this article's existance anymore, I will though still post my thoughts on the subject.

I beleive the article should give a taste of the empire to the reader, giving him what he needs to know to gain an understanding the culture and histories of its reign. In this much like the Roman Empire article, having the histories section divided in broad strokes (like Dynasties) and maybe subdivided sub-divided by suzarains. Keeping the information short and to the point with the intention of having these linked to lush articles of details. Beyond the History section it should have much of what ther other modern nation articles have: geography, economy, military, etc. No article on civilisations or states, save the smallest and of lesser influence or information are one stop reads. I find having so much information on a single pages deteres new readers from discovering such an amazing empire.

As the article on the Byzantine Empire it should touch all aspect of it. Should it be geared only towards the histories then perhaps we should make a History of the Byzantine Empire article.

To pick an exemple look at France, short sections of information leading to more detailled articles. I know it cuts what could be a great flow in reading yet, to take from what I wrote above its to give general readers an idea of what the Byzantine were. From there they should get the itch to read more and thats when we lead them to the big article full of detail and flowing text. As well, as is presently the case, not all sections are created equal giving an odd look to the article. In the end either all long or all short but having some short and some long give the nocive readers disproportionate information and to some perhaps importance of dynasties.

If there are any questions please ask, I hope I've made my opinion understandable and logical as I think it is. Yet it seems a history of miseunderstanding follows my posts. But in the end somethinh must change.--Dryzen 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from my lovely stubbed Byzantine battles, I ain't much of an expert or an academic given both my young age and lack of experience but I can't imagine how this article could be any more smoother. Its perfect, I love it, no matter how many times I read it I enjoy it. Therefore, I must state my opposition to any edits, but if a consencus says otherwise, so be it. By the way, I love the ending to your discussion BigDaddy1204, "THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE NEEDS YOU!" Tourskin 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this article at all (or very very little, I don't remember but it somehow crept into my watchlist). I only want to note to major maintainers, that its huge size makes it hard to maintain and to improve. Maybe a more decentralized approach would produce a series of stabler articles. OMG, that's it: the article should be managed as the Empire itself: split it into themata!! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow I never knew how much jokes could be made here. I do not see how we can give this a Komnenian restoration of any sort. I have not contributed either, but I don't dislike the idea of splitting it into themata. Yeah, we could have the main Byzantine Empire page linking to several time periods of the empire, considering how much it changes in so little time. But I sill prefer it to be centralized around this imperial article rather than in the hands of some rebellious border articles! Tourskin 18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article should be. Slac speak up! 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well safe to say we figured that one out. We know we need to get from point A to B, we just need to figure out the best way.Tourskin 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can assume that. We wouldn't be arguing over whether the article needs to be neutral or use summary style if that was the case. Slac speak up! 07:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article isn't long enough. It doesn't have enough. This empire was over a 1000 years of recorded history, meaning theres tons out there. Maybe we should divide it up into smaller sections but its not big enough in my opinion to have reached that stage.Tourskin 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But the whole point of this discussion is to ascertain whether this is meant to be a summary article or not. And if it's not, well, it can't be a featured article, it just has to be some overambitious, sprawling thing. You say, quite rightfully, that the Empire's history is colourful and spans a millenium. All the more do we need specific, targeted articles. Nobody would ever dream of attempting to take the treatment that we are suggesting for this article to History of China or History of Egypt. Nobody in their right minds seeks to cram all the information about the United States or Russia into one article. Slac speak up! 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses.

@Michalis Famelis: That was a good joke! It's good to encounter a sense of humour :)

I think that there could indeed be some merit to the idea of having links at each section to more detailed articles on particular periods/emperors/topics. That would require new articles to be created, but it could be a brilliant opportunity to do what I've always wanted - to provide a real in depth coverage of the entire history of the empire. I like it, and especially given the narrow-minded, unimaginitive and offensive attitude of the 'Wikipedia-FA-Criteria-Nazis', I think it is safe to assume it's the only realistic way to realise a better future for Byzantium at wikipedia.

@Tourskin: I agree with you that the history of the Byzantine Empire is a topic which requires far more words than are currently present in this article.

There is one last point. User:Lacrimosus has called into question the validity of my argument, by blandly citing a link to FA criteria. It therefore appears that it is necessary for me to spell out that a valid Featured Article does not have to be written in a way that drains the life out of the subject and reduces the topic to a dull, boring list of names and dates that contribute very little to a true understanding of the significance of the Byzantine Empire. The current Featured Article on Manuel I Komnenos is a perfect example of a Featured Article that is WELL WRITTEN, not just meritriciously contrived in perceived accordance with lists of criteria. It meets those criteria, but it has not abandoned its originality and excellence of prose to do so, unlike this article. That is what I'm talking about when I mention style.

As for content, 'themata' style articles covering each topic in more detail could well be the solution to the conceptual chaos that has dogged this article for too long. A clear decision here will save years of conflict in future, by creating a precise agreement as to what Byzantine Empire should be, and providing an alternative for those such as myself who want to present Byzantine history in more detail. Bigdaddy1204 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't want to argue in abstract. If you can find a specific point, or several specific points where my edits have "weakened" or "drained the life" out of the article, or however you want to phrase it, then please discuss that. Secondly, giving the example of a well-written article on Manuel Komnenos as a model for this article only indicates to me that we don't have a clear idea of what this article should be - i.e. not a character portrayal, but a summary and a guide to further understanding. Thirdly, I see no inherent problem with wanting this article to adhere to the conventions of modern scholarship. I refer you to Harris' Byzantium and the Crusades for a modern, objective portrayal that doesn't seek to soak everything in melodramatic character analysis, a staple of the medieval historiography of a bygone era. It is still an informative and entertaining read. Even more strongly do I recommend Averil Cameron's The Byzantines, whose introduction very effectively targets some of the more obvious Western prejudices about Byzantium - whether they are portrayed as scheming dedacent traitors, or as incense-shrouded icons of tragic nobility and romance. Finally, if there are effectively no limits to how long or detailed this article should be, then I personally will insist that the sections on Heraclius and Justinian be enlarged in detail to compensate for any misty-eyed focus on crusading Komnenoi. Slac speak up! 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks:

• I think that this discussion would be more productive, if it was shared with the other FAR reviewers in the article's FAR page. We would have even more feedback.
• Length limits of 35 kb are unrealistic. Full stop!
• What matters is mainly prose length and not total article's length. During 06-07 I have seen articles of more than 100 kbs getting FA status. As far as the prose is concerned, the trend is the prose not to be more than 55-60 kbs. But there no clear and undisputed criteria.
• During the last days I've rewritten parts of the article, and my goal is to finish my rewriting before FAR procedures are over, and the article loses its star. But time limits are too strict. During these rewritings I made use of WP:SS, and, in this way, I created 3 new article, summarized in sections of our article: Byzantine economy, Byzantine diplomacy (appeared in DYK), and Byzantine science. You are the final judges of my rewritings, and you are entitled to comment on them or express your objections about what I have done until now.
• During my rewriting, despite the use of WP:SS I saw the article getting bigger in total length (from 104 to 108 kbs) instead of shrinking (because of the addition of sources, photos, references etc.) Nevertheless, I think that the prose in the rewritten parts has become a bit more "concise". But let's face it: this article is inevitably going to be long; how long is, of course, a matter to discuss.
• Slac, if you check my rewriting, you will see that I shrunk a bit the Komnenoi sections, and I did enlarged a bit the Heraclian and Justinian sections, but again WP:SS should be applyed in all these sections. We cannot have everything in this article.
• I love the prose which is full of "life", and is not "dry"! Such a prose could make an article a piece of art! But, we much always have in mind a)the POV policies of Wikipedia, b) the fact that we write encyclopedical articles and not essays. If you can keep the necessary balance, and still implement such a "live" prose, then do it!

Conclusion of my remarks: I cannot answer with a yes or no to the above questions, and I cannot endorse the one or the other proposal, because for me what counts now is to make the article: a) well-written, b) accurate, c) well-researched, -referenced, and -cited, d) pleasant for the reader. What I want is to have soon a comprehensive and well-written article in front of our eyes in accord with FA criteria (so as not to lose its star). I believe that, if everything else is fine in the article, length is not enough to deprive it of its star (especially is the prose length is around 60-65 kbs). When the article was proposed in FARC by Sandy prose length was 78 kbs, but again I do not intend to allow these kbs to frighten me! I don't know if I helped, but what I wanted to stress and to make clear (successfully or not I do not know!) is that at this point any constructive contribution, in order to upgrade the quality of this article is needed!--Yannismarou 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I think your edits (what I've seen of them) have done an excellent job, Yannismarou. Slac speak up! 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Well done, Yannismarou.

I have read Harris' 'Byzantium and the Crusades'. It's a good book. Glad you enjoyed it, Lacrimosus :) Well if that is what you are suggesting, I personally would be very happy to see the sections on Justinian and Heraclius enlarged to keep up with any perceived 'focus' on the Komnenoi (though I actually think the Komnenenian period is now, if anything, under-represented, compared to other periods). After all, I wrote about the Komnenoi in detail because that was the area I knew most about, not because I necessarily thought it was 'more important' than any other period. As you know, I personally would be happy to see this article as detailed as possible, whether that is done by producing new articles based on particular periods or topics, or whether it is incorporated into the main body of Byzantine Empire.

But it seems we have something of a conceptual mess here. Are we now going to increase the detail of the various sections of this article, so that as Lacrimosus has quite fairly suggested, each section should be of equal length, or are we going to reduce everything here to brief, summary style, and have a series of more detailed articles dealing with specific periods/emperors? Lacrimosus, what do you think? Your response to my citation of Manuel I Komnenos is interesting, but I'm not sure if you quite understood it in the way I intended. I cited Manuel I Komnenos because it was an example of a Featured Article that was written in a more engaging and interesting way than this article, not because I wanted you to turn Byzantine Empire into a detailed character study of each emperor. You seem to imply that I want to turn Byzantine Empire into some sort of romantic novel about a mythical civilisation, in which objectivity and scholarship are abandoned, to be replaced by unreasoned emotion and enthusiasm. Do not worry - that is not my intention. I apologise if I was being overly aggressive earlier. Now, it is time to discuss in a mature and sensible fashion what the future of this article should be. It seems that length is the primary issue that needs to be dealt with. Can we please agree on what an appropriate length is for this article? Once we have agreed on this, working out a compromise that will satisfy all parties will be easier. Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can maintain the FA status of the article, cut down a little on the details, rearrange and set up smaller sections of the Byzantine Empire. We could have the following:

• Hellenization of the Empire: That is from 330 AD to 628 AD
• Crises of the Empire: 628 AD to 876 AD
• Macedonian Resurgence: 876 AD to 1025 AD
• Another Crises stage split into two sub-sections:

Western Influx of the Empire: 1030's to 1204, which could include Norman invasions, Crusader aid and Komnenian Restoration Eastern Influx: Which can include Seljuk Invasions in 1070's, John's campaigns and the Egyptian invasion.

• Break up of the Empire: 1204 Crusade, Rum Turks take southern Anotalia and Bulgarians reestablish themselves.

• Resurection of the Empire in 1260's under Michael Pale...whatever his name was.
• Decay and Decline of Empire: 1290's onwards.

Each of these would be mentioned in enough detail to see what happened and then an article for each could show why as well.

At this stage however, I am more of a follower than a suggester, coz I can't really think of a way to improve it. I'm open to suggestions.Tourskin 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Firmly in agreement with Tourskin, his proposals seem good.--NeroDrusus 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought the above list would be good only Historically. We need a science & education section (first nation to use compulsory primary education and I have the sources to prove it), economy one and others. Or we could integrate the lot into the different time periods i.e. economy of Byzantium was great in Macedonian dynasty, not too bad in Komnenoi dynasty and failing in later years due to debasement of coinage etc. So come on people, don't be shy speak your minds.Tourskin 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few remarks over at the FA review, but would like to accept Tourskin's invitation and "speak my mind" here as well.

The greatest problem I perceive in the article is the massive imbalance btw. the political / military history section, which is on the whole excellent, but also (I'll say it) too long, and the thematic entries under "Culture" which are drastically underdeveloped and often rely on laughably out-of-date sources. E.g. the paragraph on literature adopts an absurd taxonomy from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. The paragraph on art makes the surprising assertion that it was "the impersonal translation of carefully controlled church theology into artistic terms"; I can't think of a single current scholar or recent survey of the subject (Cormack, Rodley, etc.) that would make this claim. The entry on science is also odd; astronomy, for example, was not just cultivated at Trebizond, but in the imperial court (Magdalino); if science is here understood as the natural sciences, law and grammar have no place therein; law in any case requires a separate subheading. The section on religion is tendentious in the extreme and verges on propaganda; it is in any case exclusively concerned with the patriarchate, while the institutional face of religion naturally constitues only one element of religious life (judicious use here of D. Krueger, ed., Byzantine Christianity would help.) There are also, it should be said, quite good thematic entries: that on economy makes excellent use of the Economic history of Laiou et al.

Now to the political section; the basic problem is that it's long-winded. Comments follow in chronological order. In the first paragraph on Constantine we get two quotes from Gibbon and Bury, respectively, which add little. We then jump suddenly to Theodosius; so nothing on Julian, which is perhaps understandable in the interest of economy, but also nothing on Hadrianopolis, which is inexcusable. Throughout the fifth century there are some over-meticulous discussions of external affairs, but no mention of Ravenna, Chrysostom, or of the "Theodosian Empresses", who are crucial (Holum). The age of Justinian suffers from a blow-by-blow of military affairs, but misses the forest for the trees: he tried to restore the ancient territorial extent of the Roman Empire, which is never mentioned, but is far more important for an introduction like this than the date of Mons Lactarius.

The sections on the "dark ages" exhibit the usual lack of interest in this period, which is however crucial for understanding the later history of the empire (Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century). Heraclius fought with an icon as a military standard and restored the true cross to Jerusalem; both events of deep symbolic importance. "Menace" for the Arabs is inexcusable. No mention of Constans II & his Italian sojourn; no mention of Constantine IV & his conflict with the Senate (no mention of the Senate at all in this period); Justinian II appears suddenly in his second reign, and his attempts to crush the aristocracy, and the corresponding reaction, are nowhere mentioned. Philippikos Bardanes: alliance with the old families, revival of monotheletism.

Likewise the section on the Isaurians is pitifully short for the dynasty that actually oversaw the "resurgence" (yes, not the Macedonians). Military reforms of Constantine V crucial in establishing independent "palace" army (Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians). Missing: Germanos, Artabasdos, Constantine VI, Leo IV, Theodoros Studites, Patriach Ignatios....

Then, of course, after two paragraphs on the Isaurians, and hardly any mention of the intervening emperors, save Michael III, we get 15 (!) on the Macedonians -- even if the origin of the name is never explained. The focus here is, out of all proportion, on military history, with a weary-making stream of dates (suffice it to say that the Arabs reconquered Sicily). As a result emperors who were not soldiers do not appear: Leo VI nowhere mentioned, although in the later Byzantine imagination "Leo the Wise" was a dominating figure, and his tetragamy was an important moment in the relationship btw. church & state. Constantine VII mentioned only in passing as the husband of a Bulgarian, although one recalls that Toynbee wrote 1,000 pages about him. There's been a lot of talk about a "Renaissance" in this period; why? (Lemerle, Humanism). Symeon the New Theologian.

11th century: no mention of Zoe; who are the Doukai? on the same subject, "military aristocracy" mentioned here for the first time (origins in 8th century).

Komnenians: this has been addressed so often that everyone's probably weary of hearing about it, but the length of this entry is out of all proportion to their importance. At the same time there's the usual inordinate emphasis on military affairs, and the crucial point is missed; not just a dynasty, but a family (BTW, where did they come from?) who appointed their own to the most important positions. Little (no?) use of Magdalino on court culture, although he's cited for a few matters of fact; no use of Cheynet, Pouvoirs et contestations, on family politics. Certain important trends (revival of trade) are noted; others (first substantial traces of vernacular literature, western influence on court culture, "orientalizing" trend in the arts) are missed.

"Decline": five long paragraphs on 24 very short years.

"Fall": Perhaps some mention of Mistras & of cultural developments (Plethon et al.) would be in order; good essay by Sevcenko in the Oxford History. No mention of Palamas & Hesychasm, only passing mention of the (related) subject of "westernizing" vs. "anti-westernizing" forces in society. (Further: how is it possible that Athos appears only once, in an oblique reference in a quote by Choniates?)

Now, this is a lot of text, but it can be summarized as follows: the article has an overwhelming interest in tracing the military fortunes of the empire, in somewhat mechanical fashion, and little interest in tracing long-term trends, be they social, cultural, ideological, what have you. There is furthermore a disproportionate emphasis on "golden ages" (Justinian, "Macedonians," Komnenians) as well as on the few years leading up to the fourth crusade, while the somewhat messier interstitial periods are glossed over. For people who congenitally "root for the empire" detailed accounts of military reconquests may make for exciting reading; for people (that is, first-time readers) who want to know why the empire is important (ideological structures, "the last ancient state," cultural influence) it's might be rather unengaging. After all, the importance of the Byzantine Empire cannot, by definition, lie in its military successes. Surprisingly little to no use of recent synthetic accounts of the empire: Haldon, Byzantium; the Oxford History; Treadgold in the various versions; Cameron, Byzantines; from a slightly older generation, Kazhdan and Constable, People and Power, Mango, Byzantium. But it is precisely from books like these (i.e. surveys) that one can piece together a survey.

I have made an effort to be as critical as possible, and for that reason should conclude by reiterating what I've already stated at the FA review; this is an excellent resource, and its strengths certainly outweigh its weaknesses. None of the material that has been gathered on military history need be discarded; it should simply be moved to more detailed entries on the individual periods. The purpose of the main article should not be a comprehensive narrative history, but rather an attempt to characterize the empire as a whole, and to convey why all of us (presumably) find it so fascinating. --Javits2000 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its come to my attention recently whilst working on Byzantine-Arab Wars, Byzantine-Seljuk Wars and so forth - that in many of the wars that Byzantium has won she has failed to capitalize on - the successful conquests of the west by Justinian were abandoned due to the Persian wars resuming in the late 6th century. The stalemate/victory in the persian warsdue to nineveh was disrupted by the Arabs. Just when Basil II and some of his successors were winning against the Arabs in the 11th century the Turks arrive. Just when Byzantium under Manuel Comnenus stabilized the Angeloi and 4th crusade occured. Perhaps we should include an analysis on this? The way I see it, Byzantium won many battles, many wars but it did not harvest the political gains that were often sought after because of war. After all, Byzantium saw diplomacy as war in other means and her success depended upon it. This isn't original research, just a suggestion for an analysis section. Tourskin 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of coming off as peevish and cranky, Tourskin, your suggestion seems to me to be compounding some of the criticisms listed by Javits2000 above. In particular: the article has an overwhelming interest in tracing the military fortunes of the empire, in somewhat mechanical fashion, and little interest in tracing long-term trends, be they social, cultural, ideological, what have you. (. . .) For people who congenitally "root for the empire" detailed accounts of military reconquests may make for exciting reading; for people (that is, first-time readers) who want to know why the empire is important (ideological structures, "the last ancient state," cultural influence) it might be rather unengaging. Slac speak up! 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking too hard my friend - are saying that I am just trying to get a litle attention here? No offence to Javits but when I saw that massive block of text I just skimmed it briefly, as with most of these comments. I can't find this suggestion elsewhere. Who cares who said what, I think I have a valid point and have said so. I would edit this article myself but I don't want countless people such as yourself nailing me for a good intention.Tourskin 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you should read and appreciate comments before replying to them, which strikes me as common courtesy. I got frustrated because I think that Javit's point about what is wrong with this article is a very important one. Slac speak up! 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Provinces

I would really appreciate if someone could provide me with a list of the Byzantine provinces from Egypt and Anatolia to the borders of the Sassanid Empire. Please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.Azerbaijani 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag/CoA

OK,can someone explain which flag/CoA is real/precise or whatever and why.

Black eagle on golden field(used by Patriarchat,AEK,represented on FOTW) or golden eagle on red field(represented on www.heraldica.org)?

Also,can we have explanation of flag(I mean on what it has been based on)?

CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Eagles have always been used and quite frankly abused by many countries as a sign of strength, unity and power. The Byzantine double-headed eagle has its origins from the Roman Imperial Eagle which signified power honor etc. The Byzantines naturally carried this on. However, the Byzantines decided sometime after the Resurrection of the Empire in the 1260's to make it two headed as a way of showing how Byzantine Imperial Authority looks to the West and to the East. As you can see Constantinople is in the Middle of the Known World. To the East lies well the Easten half of the known world and the west the Western half. Europe to west and Asia to the East. I got that info from the following book:

Great Ages of Man, Byzantium. Its an old Time Life Book.

As for the different red and gold and black colors, I can only guess thats the taste of the Emperor. The Germans began to use Black and Gold so the Byzantines may have switched to Red and Gold to avoid confusion and distinguish themselves as true Romans. Tourskin 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

According to popular tradition, which may well be later interpretation, the red-golden form was used by the imperial family, while the yellow-black was to be used by subordinate persons, who ranked below the emperor (hence they could use only the black "shadow" of his eagle). What is a fact is that while we have numerous depictions of the golden eagle on red, evidently continuing the earlier Roman practice, there is no pictorial evidence (in the Byzantine sphere of influence) for the black on yellow version. However, we know of similar variations in Serbia and Albania, so the interpretation may well be true. Its use in modern times by various Greek institutions seems to be based on the heraldry of the Holy Roman Empire and the later Russian versions (also influenced by the HRE), which all used black eagles on yellow backgrounds (as Greece never had much experience with heraldry, don't expect much in terms of historical accuracy). The flag with the crosses is also attested in a 14th century Spanish atlas, the "Conoscimento de todos los reinos", so it should be indeed the actual flag of the Empire during the late Palaeologian period. Cplakidas 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Empire's ~1100 year lifespan, I'd be surprised if one could talk of a single byzantine flag and COA. My best guess would be that apart from the Labarum, flags and COAs changed with every new emperor, or imperial dynasty (the Isauroi, the Macedonians, the Komnenoi, the Paleologoi etc). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With all those coups, civil wars and assasinations you would expect them to change the flags more times than they could possibly keep track of.

• Where exactly can this depiction(golden on red) be found(i`m curious,`cause of article on serbian wiki about CoA/flag of BE)? Any links are more then welcome. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the current image file for the flag seems to be somehow corrupted. It's not showing up in the article (it's just a solid white box), though if you click it you can see the full-sized version just fine. — NRen2k5 12:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)