![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
This article has, once again, fallen below the normal FA quality, specifically in referencing. While the last year's worth of edits may have been thoroughly discussed, they have not kept the quality of previous revisions. So, per the WP:FAR guidelines, I'm hoping to resolve issues with the active editors here before dragging everyone through the laborious process that it is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
While I haven't looked at every instance, and some aren't specific enough to check, virtually all these issues were present in the FAR version that you reverted to the other day. Indeed, many of the passages and cites you reference haven't been changed at all (the quotes are the same, the Political aftermath paragraph is the same, the quote in n. 16, etc.). So it's odd that you find that version preferable per se. Raise your "nitpicks," by all means, but indiscriminately reverting a year's worth of edits and threatening a review is hardly constructive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems listed above was added in the past year, the mistake in the cite, which displays a Category within the cite. I cannot figure out how to fix it, so I have replaced it with the old version, which still links to the proper article but does not show the name in Greek. Here is what I removed:
Oddly, the Category doesn't show up here, only in the article. Clearly there is something going on with the coding, but I'm mystified. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This article tracks virtually verbatim with History of the Roman Empire throughout the Byzantine period. While I know that one should not simply copy text from one article to another, as I am making copy edits to one, I am making the same edits to the other. Since they are already the same, it makes no sense to leave one unedited. There are instances where links are left out in one because they were present before the tracking began, but I'm essentially editing them together. (To clarify, via a conversation at the other page, I'm talking about minor copyedits to exiting text, primarily for grammar and coherence, not new material.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To everyone on here, I am proposing to merge the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles into one article, given that they were both the same empire. What do you all think of this proposal? Do you oppose or support it? Keeby101 ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since you all have put the Ottoman Empire as the main successor state to the Byzantine Empire, how about we merge the Ottoman Empire article with the Roman and Byzantine Empire articles as well? The new article will be called the "Roman Empire" and the new sections of the article would be called Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. What do you all think? Keeby101 ( talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Gather an honest opinion by a well regarded hellenic historian on why we should continue to use the denonym "Byzantine Empire" instead of "Eastern Roman Empire" for the past entity known contemporarily as The Roman Empire, centered in Constantinopolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.37.135 ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, I was a bit ignorant on the proposals and I just wanted to say to everyone that I am sorry for making such proposals. I should have rephrased the proposal in the very first place. I should have actually proposed to make an article of my own called "Rome(Entity)" that would have consist of sections titled Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. Each of these sections would have had links to the current articles. With that being said. I apologize for that and do not hate me. I am not trolling. Peace ☮ Keeby101 ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
After wading through this talk page I hesitate to even suggest this, but I found it odd that the modern name of the capital city is not mentioned anywhere. I have no interest in whatever political dispute is involved, I was just curious where the seat of the empire was located, that is, how I could find it on a modern map. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
First, good point, it should be there (and now is). Second, why not have "edited boldly" (WP advice), yourself? Third, clicking on Constantinople instantly tells you how to find it on a modern map. Jmacwiki ( talk) 05:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The purpose of this map was to figure out where the remnants of the Roman Empire was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper321 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose this sentence read: "Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally known as Byzantium." And I'm not "editing boldly" because touching the first paragraph of this article is like lighting a fuse. ;) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Original anonymous poster of the section which you edited here.
Yes, some of the language was inapropriate.
Yes, linking the "Byzantine Empire" article to the "Ottoman Empire" article through an "arrow" in the infobox, denotes an connotation that is also inapropriate and factually wrong as the "Ottoman Empire" is not a sucessor state to the "Byzantine Empire".
Hopefully Chewings72 and other "armchair" wikipedia editors find this new section, civil in nature and without inapropriate language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.33.75 ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The term Byzantine wasn't used until 1558 by Hieronymus Wolf. That frankly needs to be mentioned prominently. We are talking the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, people who never referred to themselves as Byzantine,I did like that that was mentioned early on. However it isn't even mentioned in the opening that there is still contention between historians to this day over weather we should even use the term "Byzantine" at all, in my undergrad studies professor that wouldn't let us refer to them as Byzantines at all.. The reason I think this should be included early on is because most people frankly don't read past that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialaccount ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
After the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, the empire's territories were partitioned. The newly established state to take the Byzantine Empire's place was the Latin Empire: as a distinct country with different territory, a different religion, and different leaders, shouldn't the Latin Empire be recognized as a successor and antecedent to the Byzantine Empire? Although the Latin Empire lasted for barely 50 years, the re-established Byzantine Empire was much different from the previous one. For a model of how I suggest this article's infobox be structured, you can check out Northern Rhodesia's article. Thanks! B14709 ( talk) 22:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The central mistake the current lead makes is that it doesn't explain the often-misunderstood issue of what exactly this state was and how it "came to be"
The Roman Empire was never split in two, rather, it was a single state with two administrations. During such periods when it had two Imperial courts, the area administered by the Eastern Court in Constantinople is referred to by historians(!) as the "Eastern Roman Empire", while the provinces administered by the Western Court in Ravenna/Milan is called "Western Roman Empire", again - by historians.
Those two troublesome terms come with two misconceptions: that the Empire was split into two states; amd that the contemporary names of said states were "Eastern/Western Roman Empire". It must be made clear that the Empire was not split into two, and that the terms are historiographic, not contemporary (the latter is sort of done, but it could be done better).
Further, the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is even more problematic as historians sometimes use it to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole(!) - after there is no more "Western Roman Empire". This is all part of the simplified high-school-level narrative ("there were western and eastern empires; then the western fell, and the eastern continued on"). I know this is by no means the first time I myself am struggling to somehow correct high-school history.
So there are three points connected to the ERE term:
I've tried to somehow address this in my latest lead draft. I'm not 100% happy with it, but I think its a step in the right direction.
A few further points:
-- Director ( talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Future, since the gist of your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) that "having different headings in the box and in the article title is okay if and only if the relation between the two is self-evident", then please support that claim with something or otherwise give this up. Far from it being a "personal" thing for me, it seems that the reverse may be true. Frankly I feel all these "orders" you're issuing are a bit demeaning ("No.", "You will not change this.", etc.). -- Director ( talk)
Allow me to but in on this conversation! Especially given that I was mentioned and my username was linked to everyone! Dear B14709, its fine to mention me, but please do not link my username to everyone please!
Since I am here however... I will give my two cents on regards to this edit war or rather a discussion that is starting to escalate into an edit war. Personally, I think that the name of the article along with the article itself is fine as is, however the only problem that I have with it is the fact that the Ottoman Empire is shown/labeled as the successor state to it. In my opinion, the Despotate of the Morea and the Empire of Trebizond should be labeled as the successor states to the Byzantine empire given that they survived after 1453 and were not absorbed into the Ottoman empire until 1460-61. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick post from a retired Wikipedia editor. I was working on this page back in 2005, and people were arguing over the name issue even then. Pages and pages and pages of discussions on this topic have been written and archived. In my humble opinion, the Byzantine Empire name dispute will never be solved to the satisfaction of all parties. Long after those who have just taken part in this round of debate have retired from Wikipedia, I am certain that others will come after you and continue the debate. :) Bigdaddy1204 ( talk) 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No Wikiproject Byzantine Empire, huh?
This talk page shows all history in the various archives, but the View history link does not show edits prior to the first archival in 2008. It looks like someone mistakenly deleted all of the history elements when archiving the talk page on June 15, 2008 ( THIS edit). There is a redirect to the archive, located HERE, but there is no capacity to view history in archives. Or, rather, the history only shows the history of the archival. Does anyone know how to remedy this situation? I assume it is possible to recover the history from the underlying database (at least it seems to appear to be there and in exported XML).
I will also post on Village Pump (technical), since this seems to be a solidly technical issue. Wikipositivist ( talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Can't believe we have yet another infobox problem here (seriously, why is it that it's only ever the infobox entries that attract disagreement on this article?) Anyway, people have been reverting between two versions of the "religion=" entry, one of which simply describes the main religion as "Orthodox Christianity", while the other distinguishes between "Christianity" first and "Orthodox Christianity" only "after 1054" [22]. The "after 1054" version was first introduced about 12 months ago [23], apparently without significant discussion back then.
I can see the point for both sides, of course. On the one hand, some people are obviously reluctant to project the label "eastern orthodox" back into the pre-schism period. On the other hand, the version that emphasizes the distinction between "Christianity" and "Orthodox Christianity" seems to imply that the Byzantines suddenly changed their religion in 1054 – which is obviously wrong. So I personally prefer the plain version. The religion of the Byzantines didn't suddenly turn into something different, just because something else was branching away from it in some other part of the world. The form of Christianity that characterizes the Byzantine Empire is clearly the single, unbroken tradition which today, in hindsight, we describe as the "Eastern Orthodox" one. Trying to cram the terminlogical distinction into the box strikes me as a typical instance of over-scrupulous obsession with detail at the cost of plain readability that's unfortunately such a common problem in infobox editing.
Of course, just to make this clear, this has nothing to do with which of the two branches of the schism has any claim to representing the "true" continuation of pre-schism Christianity. I would obviously make the same argument for the western side (and indeed, I find that the corresponding infobox entry at Papal States duly says "Roman Catholic" throughout, which is as it should be). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the real/conventional name of the Byzantine Empire (which is Roman Empire), wasn't on the top of the article's leading paragraph, in contrast to how the real/conventional names were always on top of their corresponding Wiki articles, such as for the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
I find it important that the name Roman Empire is placed on the top of the article, alongside the term Byzantine Empire, because the official name of that state should be on the top of the paragraph. So, I decided to make some careful edits that do not break the meaning and readability of the leading paragraph, while at same time, it has the real/conventional name for that state moved to the top of the page, like how it was done in all other Wikipedia articles for all other states, so far:
Before:
and After my improvements:
The article is already very clear about the fact that the "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created and used after the end of the realm, but with these edits today, the conventional name too, is prioritized, and moved to its proper place, along with its historiographical terms used for that state. It doesn't matter if the article explains the state's real name or not, its conventional name should be at the beginning like how it was done with all the other Wikipedia articles for the empires of the world. -- SilentResident ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In contrast to the Roman Empire and Republic, I think that the Byzantine Empire is to have its flags and symbols instead of using coins to represent the state. Different to the case of Roman Empire and Republic while the conventions of flags and coats of arms has not yet arisen, Byzantine empire was already a highly structural and feudalistic state in the high middle ages, which also has its official flags and symbols. The Palaeologian flag is used in the Wikipedia template of Byzantine empire. Some argues that the labarum is just a simple, solely religious symbol, but there is no doubt in that the double headed eagle is the official imperial heraldry of the Byzantine Emperors and represents their imperial authorities. I am happy to discuss here for which edition of flag to be used, and equally happy to ditch the labarum for the double headed eagle, but I just specifically detest the use of coin as representation in the case of Byzantine Empire. Thank you for everyone's notices and contributions. Pktlaurence ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, this edit did not help, since the infobox only supports population params 1 through 5. The only way to fix it is to add more params to the template. GregorB ( talk) 12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn means 'Kingdom of the Romans' 92.226.92.254 ( talk) 03:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
lang-gkm}}
and {{
transl|gkm}}
instead of {{
lang-grc}}
and {{
transl|grc}}
.
NebY (
talk)
11:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Byzantine Empire" was popularized by Enlightenment philosophers and Catholics of the West to decry the validity of the ERE as the Roman Empire compared to the HRE. In my opinion, it is a dated and pejorative term similar to Negro and I can not fathom how it still stands today.-- Sigehelmus ( talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead has been discussed at length (ad nauseum) and a consensus version agreed upon. The current changes break the hard-fought Byzantine/Eastern Roman description with rewording and an unnecessary mention of the Sassanid empire. The new changes are also inconsistent, as the page uses 330 as the begin point for the Byzantine empire, while this dates it from the 3rd century. Tampering with the lead after such extensive work to reach a consensus version should be proposed and approved here before addition. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss all changes to the lead. Here we go again... For literally years, the lead was a source of dispute and in constant flux. See, for instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and ... this is only a partial list!). If you look back at some of these discussions, you'll see that more than one notes that the lead was changing every time someone visited the page. At last a proposal was floated and debated -- word by word at times -- until a consensus version was reached, here. That version has remained stable for over two years. It is not perfect, but it has ended years of constant changes and arguments. If further changes are to be proposed, please review these old discussions so that we do not have to go through the same arguments yet again. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can fully agree with the reasons and points you mentioned. I will work up the body to include more information about their relations, rivalry, wars, etc later on. After that, I'll make a new section on this very same talk page (and I'll ping you again if you'd like to) so we can discuss changes for the lead by that time once again. Regards - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I count 22 unused secondary sources, most of which don't deal with the overall history of Byzantine Empire. Shouldn't these be removed?-- Zoupan 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox it states that the government of the Byzantine Empire was an "Autocratic Absolute Monarchy". Links lead not to a government of that name but rather once to "Autocracy" and once to "Absolute Monarchy". That does not make much sense even though I believe I get the idea and agree with it. Autocracy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power. Absolute Monarchy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power, but is a term used in conjunction with a medieval christian european concept of "Divine Right" (or later reinterpretations to adapt it to other religions and parts of the world) and is used typically for late medieval and early modern european countries or later on until today for countries with other major religions in other parts of the world. Bottom line: 1. Autocracy contains Absolute Monarchy and 2. Absolute Monarchy is an anachronistic term. I suggest to change it to simply "Autocracy". And I am not going into the whole "Why do we need to put a simplistic label on something as complex as the government of an empire that existed for over a millenium?" thing right now. 87.151.232.141 ( talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Basic conclusion makes me dubious about that the Byzantine empire was predominantly Greek speaking throughout all the time to say the least. for example under Justinian the empire not only included the Italic peninsula and Roma but Latin was official, in addition to the numerous Illyrian tribes and some Germanics. How could be said that in such periods Greek was spoken predominatly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.47.134 ( talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The dubious tag should, if possible be removed. If the authors/editors of this page would look into it, as I believe it is a direct cause of the other post previously made by another. The Byzantine empire, although not listed as predominantly Greek by Ethnicity, was definitely predominately Greek in terms of culture and language. The citizens would have most likely have known Greek to a certain standard because it was the lingua franca of the empire. For instance, Greeks, not only by Ethnicity, but mostly by their culture and language were highly frequent in the parts of the Empire now not considered Greece. With only a short amount of research one can find that the influence of the Greek population was far reaching, helped along by the Byzantine administration and the age old spread that Greek Culture benefits from.In regards to the doubts raised by the previous post, the Romans had for centuries spoken Greek to some degree, the Empire adopted Greek culture to a moderate degree and as for the italic peninsula, in regards mostly to the southern, it was highly Hellenised even after the fall of the West and the reconquest by Belisarius and the Eastern Romans/Byzantines. That period was merely a marked transition from predominantly Roman administration to Hellenic Administration. The transition however had no effect on the culture of the land, which merely remained influenced by the Greek language and culture. The effect of the influence of the Greeks is longstanding, even visible today in those parts of Italy. As for the Illyrians, it is safe to say that by the period of Justinian they were safely Hellenised to a degree that is worthy of note. The Illyrian population began its process of Hellenisation prior to it being conquered by Rome, having began around the time of Phillip II. The process continued due to varying levels of already existing similarities. The Romans merely began their influence after their conquest, stated as having had a 'Latin influence'. The point of interest is that whilst the areas of Greek influence are clearly consolidated ( Take a look at the JirečekLine ) The Areas of Latin influence are hardly solidified, with the Latin culture and language already being transitioned to a more Greek centralised position. It is safe to say that the Greek Culture and Language, even to some degree of Religion in its various forms, was the predominant ( if not able to use a stronger term) in the the Empire. 84.254.8.199 ( talk) 17:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Byzantine Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Norwich93":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article Western Roman Empire, the status text of the infobox clearly shows it as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Western Court". Similarly for this article, it should show the Byzantine Empire as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Eastern Court (330-476)" when it coexisted with the Western Roman Empire (and perhaps with added status text "Sole court of the Roman Empire (476-1453)" for the later periods). In order to be consistent, the status text should either be shown in both articles (the preferred solution), or shown in neither articles. Thanks. -- Cartakes ( talk) 16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for reference: this text was first added by User:Jack Gaines on 11 April 2015 [30], then removed (by me) on 26 April [31], then reinserted by User:Cartakes on 27 June [32], then removed by User:Swarm on 15 August [33], then reinserted and expanded again by Cartakes on 16 August [34], then removed again by me on 7 September [35], then re-added once again by User:I Feel Tired [36] and twice more by Cartakes [37] [38], with reverts back by myself and most recently by User:Dr.K. [39]. None of the three people who inserted it made even a single talkpage contribution here during all that time, until today. What a fucking pathetic story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for this addition. I see one editor saying the demo looks OK. I agree with Fut.Perf's remarks above. This is unnecessary, undue weight, and worse, it takes us back into the Byzantine/Roman argument that has been beaten to death. We specifically distinguish between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, yet this addition confusingly calls the Byzantine Empire a court of the Roman Empire. We've been down this road too many times (see my list of links to prior arguments on this point in the discussion above, beginning with the bolded text, "Please discuss all changes to the lead"). The only use I see for this addition is for people who cannot be bothered to read the first two sentences of the article. It is just infobox bloat, trying to summarize complex content into soundbite size. It is unnecessary and introduces inconsistency at the very top of the page. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's mantain a clear distinction between the Roman Empire (that fell duiring the fifht century) and the Byzantine empire that fell in the 15th century. Moreover, I oppose to use the term "eastern roman empire" when there was not a western part. Barjimoa ( talk) 11:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing these sentences:
Rosser says nothing of the kind on p. 2, though on p. xxxvii he calls that expression "modern". A search on Google Books shows it to have been used since at least 1704, and it's also used by Gibbon, but all that's just OR. The OED doesn't have an entry for Byzantine Empire. -- Antiquary ( talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been quite bothered by the name of this article as it does not all give an accurate picture of what this empire is.The term Byzantine Empire is to me too archaic as Byzantium was the name of Istanbul when it was not the capital of the Roman Empire.Also I feel the term is misleading as it implies the Byzantine empire isn't the Roman Empire at all and also the article said it was a continuation of the Roman Empire but the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire are the exact same entities for goodness sake and most of all this misleads that all the Roman Empire died in 476 ad rather than 1453 ad. All what I'm requesting is to correct any errors in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
After this comment by Swarm, I decided to refrain from editing the lead here, agreeing that perhaps I was no longer approaching that area with a clear view. A consensus version of the lead was developed by multiple editors some time ago. I urged above for changes to the lead to be discussed before being made, but that is no longer being done. So we have returned to where the lead changes pretty much daily. Now there is a lengthy edit war going on over the "Greek-speaking" phrasing. (That language was part of the consensus version, for what it's worth.) I'll not take a position whether that version should be restored or on the current edit war. But I would urge again that edits to the lead be discussed. Having the intro change on a daily basis is not a good situation, and a name-calling edit war is certainly not constructive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
When editing any other article I would not be bothered to discuss anything as unimportant as this, but knowing how sensitive the lead section of this article is, I feel obliged to post here before changing anything myself. I would like to suggest the following, relatively unimportant, improvements:
I don't expect anything of this to be really controversial. That's it, thank you for your time. Michael! ( talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been bold and rewrote the second paragraph of the lead in line with the points discussed above, although I also inserted a sentence on Constantine, because I felt it was required by the already existing first sentence of this paragraph (which I didn't change). Michael! ( talk) 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want to thank everyone who has contributed to this article. So impressive, and I just learned so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.184.29 ( talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Their were multiple successor why is the Ottoman Empire the only listed one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:57:E36E:3841:5C09:5924:C72B:B08F ( talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it standard to transcribe all pre-Modern Greek words/names in a way that implies a classical pronunciation despite that in Byzantine times, 1000 AD to be precise, most (if not all) phonological changes were completed? For example, Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων is transcribed "Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn", with long vowels preserved: by this time, long and short vowel distinctions are lost. I am not very familiar with how Greek is to be transcribed in generally, but are classical pronunciations still followed through even for Modern Greek (IE. with β as 'b' not 'v', αι as 'ai' not 'e', αυ/ευ as 'au/eu' not 'av/ev')? If it is acceptable to transcribe these words in a way reflecting Byzantine-era pronunciation, it might be recommendable. The page on "Medieval Greek" does this to some extent, with πεδιά as "pediá" not "paidiá", and οἰκία as "ykía" not "oikía". Iotacist ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The first line under the heading 'Religion' is as follows: The Byzantine Empire was a Theocracy ruled by God working through the Emperor.
This is presented as a statement of fact. My knowledge of the Byzantine Empire is very slim, but one thing I am sure of is that it was not ruled by a supernatural being. It seems to me also that Byzantium was an empire run by an emperor or a theocracy run by religious leaders, but that it cannot have been both.
86.140.142.43 ( talk) 11:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I clarified the sentence. Ugly Ketchup ( talk) 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Byzantine Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So, I did some research onto this and the Klimata region of Crimea belonged in Byzantine hands prior to the early 8th century, and supporting this is the evidential citadel that Justinian I built in the city of Kerch. Also The use of Chersonesus as a place of Exile for Justinian II. This shows that byzantines controlled southern crimea from head to toe up to the bosphorus. I have modified the map of Tataryn to include this place. Please replace the map used in the page. Also the user above's concern is certainly an issue that needs fixing. But Im afraid I couldn't do it in the map I have produced. My link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justinian555AD_with_Klimata.png Thank you.
LaikasKruger ( talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this [45] attempt at reintroducing a "today part of..." entry with a list of modern countries in the infobox: please note that such a list was previously removed by consensus, most recently after this talkpage discussion in 2012: Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 12#List of Countries. Please don't reintroduce this without prior consensus. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Fut.Perf., with all due respect, information like that on infoboxes are required. I was the one who reintroduced the "today part of..." under an IP address, which by the way I'm not giving, before creating a new account. I regret not using consensus before reintroducing "today part of..." infobox. Other empire and country articles like the Russian Empire and the Spanish Empire have a "today part of.." entry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmuniz115 ( talk • contribs)
these numbers, from the infobox, can not be right.
" Area • 450 AD[1] 2,800,000 km² (1,081,086 sq mi)
• 555 AD[1] 2,700,000 km² (1,042,476 sq mi) "
by 555 justinian, belisarius, et al. had ADDed back about one half of the old "west" roman empire to the existing territory of the "eastern" empire.
(or 1/3 to 1/2 say; depending on what you count, & what accounting you do on the reconquered territories)
so howinthehell did the empire SHRINK BY 100,000 KM2, from 450 to 555?
{:p)
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
[...]
395 A.D. Byzantine Empire 2.1+/-.3 m,a Partition of Roman empire 450 2.8 m 486 1.6 m 527 1.9+/-.3 a,m Justian's rule starts 555 2.7 a,m Italy, N. Africa, Spain taken. Peak size [...]
So why is the 450 A.D. figure still here? What in the world did the Eastern Empire lose after 450 and before Justinian reconquered Western Roman lands? It makes no sense. If this issue is not resolved, I will delete the 450 land area. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 04:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And you MUST NOT change a figure but leave the reference intact, on the grounds that it "must be wrong".Nobody did that. The 555 AD figure is supported by the source. What they did is removed one sourced claim (on the grounds that it "must be wrong", sure) and kept another from the same source. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The "Language" section currently reads:
It then continues:
The first part of this statement ("the primary language...") is about the official language, whereas the second part is about the various vernaculars which obviously were spoken (and many written) continuously, even if they weren't official (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and other Caucasian languages throughout the Byzantine period, and Slavic and Turkic in later periods; Albanian wasn't written until the 18th century, but presumably was spoken continuously). This needs to be clarified. -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
This is more of a question than a suggestion, but should the infobox not state the name as "Roman Empire" and not "Byzantine Empire" since "Roman Empire" was the single unifying name that was used for the state throughout its history? I know that "Byzantine Empire" is a more commonly used term, especially today, but looking at other historical states, particularly closely related ones such as the Western Roman Empire and the Latin Empire, it seems like they use a more or less period-accurate name in the infobox and the more historiographically used term as the article title and throughout the article itself.
I would also like to point out that the article points to the Byzantine Empire beginning in c.330 (presumable due to Constantine moving the capital of the empire to Constantinople), which is the point at which most people tend to refer to it beginning. However, this article is also used as the article for the Eastern Roman Empire which (as common sense would dictate) began as a concept and a realized administrative unit at the same time as the Western Roman Empire, in 285 and ended when emperor Zeno abolished both the titles of "western" and "eastern emperor" in 480, at least juridically making it a unified roman empire again. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Haven't looked at the article in a while and as an observation ..
The lead section goes to a lot of trouble to describe possible events to be considered begin and end dates. Though that is appropriate to be discussed in the body, it is very distracting in the lead. I would suggest instead just broadly summarizing how the Empire split and how the East collapsed without trying to discuss specifically the differing opinions on the litany of events that people debate about. Truthfully trying to nail down exact begin/end dates is pointless if we are being honest.
-- MC 2600:100C:B006:A997:9FE:51F7:939:CAC5 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Athalaric was Theodoric's grandson, not his nephew.
65.158.174.2 ( talk) 05:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a population figure that is supposed to state the number of population. It says:
" Population
• 565 AD est. 26,000,000 • 780 AD est. 7,000,000 • 1025 AD est. 12,000,000 "
I think the above is somehow insufficient, and i suggest to expand it:
457 AD 16,000,000
565 AD 26,000,000
780 AD 7,000,000
1025 AD 12,000,000
1097 AD 5,000,000
1143 AD 10,000,000
1320 AD 2,000,000
I think it will provide more accurate picture. Note that i am not quite sure whether the numbers are accurate as there are contradictions and different numbers.
En historiker ( talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Some time now i 've noticed the byzantine empire's map of 555 is carrying some serious mistakes. The most striking is the capital mark on Rome. The empire's capital always had been Constantinople (which currently is incorectly titled Byzantium). Another mistake is the depiction of trajan's era province names in justinian's era (to many to be pointed). Could the map artist who made this please make some more research and fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.176.12 ( talk) 17:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
When people step in and change the dates for this thing can they please edit all parts of the infobox the match the new dating? I agree that 1453 should obviously be the end date but changing it from 1461 to 1453 in this quick way has made the "events" section list the fall of Trebizond as occurring on 15 August 1453. I tried to fix this but could not figure it out, can someone please fix it and put the fall of Trebizond in 1461 while keeping the end date for the empire as 1453. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised not to see the Great Schism of 1054 mentioned in the lead. I suggest the following small insertion:
OLD: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity.
NEW: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and, especially since the Great Schism of AD 1054, characterised by Orthodox Christianity. 81.131.171.56 ( talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really. That sentence is about the difference between Christianity and ancient Roman polytheism, not that between Eastern and Western churches. And Byzantium was really no more and no less "orthodox" after 1054 than before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
For contemporary Westerners such as Pope Gregory I, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Liutprand of Cremona, Paul the Deacon the chronicler of the Lombards, William of Tyre and many others the Eastern Roman Empire was considered Greek and in most Western documents the empire is called Imperium Graecorum which means a Greek Empire. Of course this addition I added saw an immediate revert by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. However - the lead talks about the various names and spelling of the names in detail - except the actual name that was most used by Western sources! I think it is critical to include the name the Empire was known by at the time by the West. Thoughts? Reaper7 ( talk) 17:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
References
So we have established. Then go find reliable sources stating
it was the West's main descriptioninstead of trying to "prove" it through your own research. -- T*U ( talk) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Lead sentence states that the RE continued in "the East". This is an inappropriate localization. (It did not continue in East Asia, nor in Eastern Europe, nor in East Africa, all possible referents for "the East", especially for non-European/American readers.) It continued in the Eastern Mediterranean.
For some reason, that is regarded as a non-standard descriptor. If a standard matters here, please replace with a standard but appropriate descriptor: "the East" isn't it. Jmacwiki ( talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: re this new version [48], sorry for being quite picky now, but I'm afraid "was the continuation of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire" is still not quite acceptable. The crucial point about this lead sentence, which was fought over long and hard some years ago, is to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire not merely in terms of parts of its territory, but in terms of continuity and identity as an institution. In this sense, it's really not quite enough to say it was "the continuation of some part" of the empire; it was the "continuation of the empire" itself, as a whole. Would "continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern parts" be acceptable? (And, as a matter of procedure, given the enormous amounts of past debate that have gone into this wording, could you please come here to the talkpage before inserting further new versions?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
In the wikipedia-page of the Western Roman Empire the period is listed as “395-476”. I think the Byzantine Empire should be listed as “395-1453” since it makes more sense geographically from my perspective.
But IF it should be an earlier timeline, then it should begin in 286 with Diocletian’s tetrarchy rather than when Constantine founded Constantinople. Moving a capital, founding a capital, converting to a new religion really do not make a new empire.
But all this is a personal perspective of mine.
What do the other editors think?:
Should it start from 286 when Diolectian became sole emperor and initiated the tetrarchy later?
Or 330 when Constantine I founded Constantinople?
Or 395 when the empire was divided for the last time?
En historiker ( talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And for the record:
/info/en/?search=Western_Roman_Empire
That wikipedia page of "Roman Empire" have "27 BC – 395 AD"
That wikipidia page of "Western Roman Empire" have "395–476"
My opinion is that 395 sounds most correct, both geographically, but also since it is more compatible with the others wikipedia-pages.
One more thing: In the German-, French-, Spanish-, Arabic-wikipedia pages all have listed "395-1453" also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
En historiker ( talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I see. Just one little thing: "Partition of the Roman Empire" did not find place in 330. So please fix it since I cannot figure out how to do it properly. En historiker ( talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
How about this:
Tetrarchy: 284
The last division of the Roman Empire in west and east: 395
I think it would make most sense, but perhaps others disagree. En historiker ( talk) 22:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
When one clicks on "Final East-West division" the link leads you to a weird page about Maximian.(??) - It would be more correct if it leads to the page about Theodosius. I don't how to fix it. If other can do it, then please do it. En historiker ( talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This reads better to my eyes. In answer to a previous question on this point, my understanding is that the separation in 395 produced two separate states, unlike previous separations: separate imperial dynasties and lineages, separate armies, separate taxation, separate political agendas, etc. -- though of course the Western RE did not survive long enough for this divergence to evolve much. Jmacwiki ( talk) 04:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I must disagree with the user above, who erroneously stated that historiography "overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330" - actually we have stark scholarly divisions over when the ERE actually starts to exist as a (*separate*) political entity. Some historians say it started back at Diocletian's Tetrarchy; others would claim that it was Heracleus' reforms that kickstarted the new realm. Most historians choose something in the middle, most likely 330 or 395. In my opinion, the Eastern Roman Empire did *not* exist in 330-395, just as the Western Roman Empire didn't. After all, how could the ERE exist in 330-395, but not the Western Roman Empire? Or would you claim that somehow both existed? The point does not sustain itself; most historians also point out that the Roman Empire was firmly united under Constantine I's hand and his immediate successors, and that during the 330-395 timeframe the empire worked as one. Our very own page for the Roman Empire ( /info/en/?search=Roman_Empire) even lists it as ending at 395, with its Western & Eastern halves "coming to life" in 395. I concede that historical accuracy is in a point of dispute over this matter and that 330 is a key year for the ERE that should be pointed out under the spotlight, but for consistency's sake changing the start date to 395 is the best middle ground. LuizLSNeto ( talk) 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
In the "Capital Constantinople" there is a "c", but when you click on it it leads you to a "b"-footnote about Theodosius.
One has to fix it since I don't know how to do it.
En historiker ( talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add please this important characteristic Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. Link1 LINK 2
The Byzantine Empire played a vital role in the formation of modern Europe and the Middle East. Between the 4th and the 12th century, it was the leading culture that set standards in all areas of life and that had a key influence on all neighbouring states. Byzantium formed a bridge between Antiquity and the Modern Age and, at the same time, between Europe and the Orient.
The series serves as publication organ for the research programme of the Leibniz ScienceCampus Mainz that studies Byzantium, its role as bridge between East and West, and cultural transfer and reception processes from Antiquity to modern times. The methods and research subjects of the various disciplines dedicated to Byzantium are brought together across traditional disciplinary boundaries in order to take a comprehensive historical and cultural approach to research into Byzantium and its material and immaterial culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.247.126 ( talk • contribs)
@KuyaBriBri. The sentence The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. is not copied (; ....it's my formulation -- 85.212.154.192 ( talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That gold coin depicting Justinian in the beginning of the page is really ugly, and it tells not much to the readers. In contrary the Ravenna-mosaic of Justinian and his men is more vivid and more byzantine-"styled", and it will make more impression on the readers when they visit that wiki-page.
Thus I suggest to remove that tremissis of Justinian, and instead use use this Ravenna-mosaic as the intro-image:
/info/en/?search=Basilica_of_San_Vitale#/media/File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_003.jpg
What do the editors think?
En historiker ( talk) 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
If it absolutely has to be a coin then perhaps this coin beneath would be a better choice simple because it is more beautiful, and more decorated than that Justinian-coin. It may look ugly when seeing a large image, but once the size becomes small in the page the coin becomes more stunning: Here is that Heraclius coin I am talking about:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius#/media/File:Heraclius_613-616.jpg
Here you can see a smaller image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius
En historiker (
talk)
19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
If any here can do the image of Heraclius and his son smaller, then please do it. En historiker ( talk) 12:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Some sort of the Antikythera mechanism was reactivated in the 500s in Byzantium, and it is the second oldest geared mechanism ever known. Look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZupgfqqZuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHq4O-ib2U
But the problem is that there are no wikipedia-image of it.
If you google "The Byzantine sundial calendar" you will find a lot images of that.
Can any of you upload/create some image(s) so I can upload them in the Byzantine-page and other pages that deal with mechanism. Because it is incredible mechanism showing Byzantine technology and its strong scientific capacity.
I hope some of you can create an image of that Byzantine sundial device.
En historiker ( talk) 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Look here:
https://twitter.com/clickspring1/status/832382420984819712
and here:
En historiker ( talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is 103kB of readable prose, which is at the far limit of WP:SIZERULE. I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length. It may be due for a review. Even though the subject is complex, and covers a long period of time, that is not a reason to keep a long article. It should be condensed (and split if required). Many of the existing sections have "see also" or "main" links, but still have lengthy entries, which should be condensed. ( Hohum @) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire lasted for over 1000 years, and not just 50, 100 or 200 years as many other states. In the 1000 years of existence the state also expanded and declined 4-5 times. En historiker ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Done Any other suggestions on what else can be trimmed?
Khirurg (
talk)
02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
This article has, once again, fallen below the normal FA quality, specifically in referencing. While the last year's worth of edits may have been thoroughly discussed, they have not kept the quality of previous revisions. So, per the WP:FAR guidelines, I'm hoping to resolve issues with the active editors here before dragging everyone through the laborious process that it is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
While I haven't looked at every instance, and some aren't specific enough to check, virtually all these issues were present in the FAR version that you reverted to the other day. Indeed, many of the passages and cites you reference haven't been changed at all (the quotes are the same, the Political aftermath paragraph is the same, the quote in n. 16, etc.). So it's odd that you find that version preferable per se. Raise your "nitpicks," by all means, but indiscriminately reverting a year's worth of edits and threatening a review is hardly constructive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems listed above was added in the past year, the mistake in the cite, which displays a Category within the cite. I cannot figure out how to fix it, so I have replaced it with the old version, which still links to the proper article but does not show the name in Greek. Here is what I removed:
Oddly, the Category doesn't show up here, only in the article. Clearly there is something going on with the coding, but I'm mystified. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This article tracks virtually verbatim with History of the Roman Empire throughout the Byzantine period. While I know that one should not simply copy text from one article to another, as I am making copy edits to one, I am making the same edits to the other. Since they are already the same, it makes no sense to leave one unedited. There are instances where links are left out in one because they were present before the tracking began, but I'm essentially editing them together. (To clarify, via a conversation at the other page, I'm talking about minor copyedits to exiting text, primarily for grammar and coherence, not new material.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To everyone on here, I am proposing to merge the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles into one article, given that they were both the same empire. What do you all think of this proposal? Do you oppose or support it? Keeby101 ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since you all have put the Ottoman Empire as the main successor state to the Byzantine Empire, how about we merge the Ottoman Empire article with the Roman and Byzantine Empire articles as well? The new article will be called the "Roman Empire" and the new sections of the article would be called Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. What do you all think? Keeby101 ( talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Gather an honest opinion by a well regarded hellenic historian on why we should continue to use the denonym "Byzantine Empire" instead of "Eastern Roman Empire" for the past entity known contemporarily as The Roman Empire, centered in Constantinopolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.37.135 ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, I was a bit ignorant on the proposals and I just wanted to say to everyone that I am sorry for making such proposals. I should have rephrased the proposal in the very first place. I should have actually proposed to make an article of my own called "Rome(Entity)" that would have consist of sections titled Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. Each of these sections would have had links to the current articles. With that being said. I apologize for that and do not hate me. I am not trolling. Peace ☮ Keeby101 ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
After wading through this talk page I hesitate to even suggest this, but I found it odd that the modern name of the capital city is not mentioned anywhere. I have no interest in whatever political dispute is involved, I was just curious where the seat of the empire was located, that is, how I could find it on a modern map. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
First, good point, it should be there (and now is). Second, why not have "edited boldly" (WP advice), yourself? Third, clicking on Constantinople instantly tells you how to find it on a modern map. Jmacwiki ( talk) 05:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The purpose of this map was to figure out where the remnants of the Roman Empire was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper321 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose this sentence read: "Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally known as Byzantium." And I'm not "editing boldly" because touching the first paragraph of this article is like lighting a fuse. ;) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Original anonymous poster of the section which you edited here.
Yes, some of the language was inapropriate.
Yes, linking the "Byzantine Empire" article to the "Ottoman Empire" article through an "arrow" in the infobox, denotes an connotation that is also inapropriate and factually wrong as the "Ottoman Empire" is not a sucessor state to the "Byzantine Empire".
Hopefully Chewings72 and other "armchair" wikipedia editors find this new section, civil in nature and without inapropriate language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.33.75 ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The term Byzantine wasn't used until 1558 by Hieronymus Wolf. That frankly needs to be mentioned prominently. We are talking the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, people who never referred to themselves as Byzantine,I did like that that was mentioned early on. However it isn't even mentioned in the opening that there is still contention between historians to this day over weather we should even use the term "Byzantine" at all, in my undergrad studies professor that wouldn't let us refer to them as Byzantines at all.. The reason I think this should be included early on is because most people frankly don't read past that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialaccount ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
After the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, the empire's territories were partitioned. The newly established state to take the Byzantine Empire's place was the Latin Empire: as a distinct country with different territory, a different religion, and different leaders, shouldn't the Latin Empire be recognized as a successor and antecedent to the Byzantine Empire? Although the Latin Empire lasted for barely 50 years, the re-established Byzantine Empire was much different from the previous one. For a model of how I suggest this article's infobox be structured, you can check out Northern Rhodesia's article. Thanks! B14709 ( talk) 22:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The central mistake the current lead makes is that it doesn't explain the often-misunderstood issue of what exactly this state was and how it "came to be"
The Roman Empire was never split in two, rather, it was a single state with two administrations. During such periods when it had two Imperial courts, the area administered by the Eastern Court in Constantinople is referred to by historians(!) as the "Eastern Roman Empire", while the provinces administered by the Western Court in Ravenna/Milan is called "Western Roman Empire", again - by historians.
Those two troublesome terms come with two misconceptions: that the Empire was split into two states; amd that the contemporary names of said states were "Eastern/Western Roman Empire". It must be made clear that the Empire was not split into two, and that the terms are historiographic, not contemporary (the latter is sort of done, but it could be done better).
Further, the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is even more problematic as historians sometimes use it to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole(!) - after there is no more "Western Roman Empire". This is all part of the simplified high-school-level narrative ("there were western and eastern empires; then the western fell, and the eastern continued on"). I know this is by no means the first time I myself am struggling to somehow correct high-school history.
So there are three points connected to the ERE term:
I've tried to somehow address this in my latest lead draft. I'm not 100% happy with it, but I think its a step in the right direction.
A few further points:
-- Director ( talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Future, since the gist of your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) that "having different headings in the box and in the article title is okay if and only if the relation between the two is self-evident", then please support that claim with something or otherwise give this up. Far from it being a "personal" thing for me, it seems that the reverse may be true. Frankly I feel all these "orders" you're issuing are a bit demeaning ("No.", "You will not change this.", etc.). -- Director ( talk)
Allow me to but in on this conversation! Especially given that I was mentioned and my username was linked to everyone! Dear B14709, its fine to mention me, but please do not link my username to everyone please!
Since I am here however... I will give my two cents on regards to this edit war or rather a discussion that is starting to escalate into an edit war. Personally, I think that the name of the article along with the article itself is fine as is, however the only problem that I have with it is the fact that the Ottoman Empire is shown/labeled as the successor state to it. In my opinion, the Despotate of the Morea and the Empire of Trebizond should be labeled as the successor states to the Byzantine empire given that they survived after 1453 and were not absorbed into the Ottoman empire until 1460-61. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick post from a retired Wikipedia editor. I was working on this page back in 2005, and people were arguing over the name issue even then. Pages and pages and pages of discussions on this topic have been written and archived. In my humble opinion, the Byzantine Empire name dispute will never be solved to the satisfaction of all parties. Long after those who have just taken part in this round of debate have retired from Wikipedia, I am certain that others will come after you and continue the debate. :) Bigdaddy1204 ( talk) 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No Wikiproject Byzantine Empire, huh?
This talk page shows all history in the various archives, but the View history link does not show edits prior to the first archival in 2008. It looks like someone mistakenly deleted all of the history elements when archiving the talk page on June 15, 2008 ( THIS edit). There is a redirect to the archive, located HERE, but there is no capacity to view history in archives. Or, rather, the history only shows the history of the archival. Does anyone know how to remedy this situation? I assume it is possible to recover the history from the underlying database (at least it seems to appear to be there and in exported XML).
I will also post on Village Pump (technical), since this seems to be a solidly technical issue. Wikipositivist ( talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Can't believe we have yet another infobox problem here (seriously, why is it that it's only ever the infobox entries that attract disagreement on this article?) Anyway, people have been reverting between two versions of the "religion=" entry, one of which simply describes the main religion as "Orthodox Christianity", while the other distinguishes between "Christianity" first and "Orthodox Christianity" only "after 1054" [22]. The "after 1054" version was first introduced about 12 months ago [23], apparently without significant discussion back then.
I can see the point for both sides, of course. On the one hand, some people are obviously reluctant to project the label "eastern orthodox" back into the pre-schism period. On the other hand, the version that emphasizes the distinction between "Christianity" and "Orthodox Christianity" seems to imply that the Byzantines suddenly changed their religion in 1054 – which is obviously wrong. So I personally prefer the plain version. The religion of the Byzantines didn't suddenly turn into something different, just because something else was branching away from it in some other part of the world. The form of Christianity that characterizes the Byzantine Empire is clearly the single, unbroken tradition which today, in hindsight, we describe as the "Eastern Orthodox" one. Trying to cram the terminlogical distinction into the box strikes me as a typical instance of over-scrupulous obsession with detail at the cost of plain readability that's unfortunately such a common problem in infobox editing.
Of course, just to make this clear, this has nothing to do with which of the two branches of the schism has any claim to representing the "true" continuation of pre-schism Christianity. I would obviously make the same argument for the western side (and indeed, I find that the corresponding infobox entry at Papal States duly says "Roman Catholic" throughout, which is as it should be). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the real/conventional name of the Byzantine Empire (which is Roman Empire), wasn't on the top of the article's leading paragraph, in contrast to how the real/conventional names were always on top of their corresponding Wiki articles, such as for the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
I find it important that the name Roman Empire is placed on the top of the article, alongside the term Byzantine Empire, because the official name of that state should be on the top of the paragraph. So, I decided to make some careful edits that do not break the meaning and readability of the leading paragraph, while at same time, it has the real/conventional name for that state moved to the top of the page, like how it was done in all other Wikipedia articles for all other states, so far:
Before:
and After my improvements:
The article is already very clear about the fact that the "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created and used after the end of the realm, but with these edits today, the conventional name too, is prioritized, and moved to its proper place, along with its historiographical terms used for that state. It doesn't matter if the article explains the state's real name or not, its conventional name should be at the beginning like how it was done with all the other Wikipedia articles for the empires of the world. -- SilentResident ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In contrast to the Roman Empire and Republic, I think that the Byzantine Empire is to have its flags and symbols instead of using coins to represent the state. Different to the case of Roman Empire and Republic while the conventions of flags and coats of arms has not yet arisen, Byzantine empire was already a highly structural and feudalistic state in the high middle ages, which also has its official flags and symbols. The Palaeologian flag is used in the Wikipedia template of Byzantine empire. Some argues that the labarum is just a simple, solely religious symbol, but there is no doubt in that the double headed eagle is the official imperial heraldry of the Byzantine Emperors and represents their imperial authorities. I am happy to discuss here for which edition of flag to be used, and equally happy to ditch the labarum for the double headed eagle, but I just specifically detest the use of coin as representation in the case of Byzantine Empire. Thank you for everyone's notices and contributions. Pktlaurence ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, this edit did not help, since the infobox only supports population params 1 through 5. The only way to fix it is to add more params to the template. GregorB ( talk) 12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn means 'Kingdom of the Romans' 92.226.92.254 ( talk) 03:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
lang-gkm}}
and {{
transl|gkm}}
instead of {{
lang-grc}}
and {{
transl|grc}}
.
NebY (
talk)
11:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Byzantine Empire" was popularized by Enlightenment philosophers and Catholics of the West to decry the validity of the ERE as the Roman Empire compared to the HRE. In my opinion, it is a dated and pejorative term similar to Negro and I can not fathom how it still stands today.-- Sigehelmus ( talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead has been discussed at length (ad nauseum) and a consensus version agreed upon. The current changes break the hard-fought Byzantine/Eastern Roman description with rewording and an unnecessary mention of the Sassanid empire. The new changes are also inconsistent, as the page uses 330 as the begin point for the Byzantine empire, while this dates it from the 3rd century. Tampering with the lead after such extensive work to reach a consensus version should be proposed and approved here before addition. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss all changes to the lead. Here we go again... For literally years, the lead was a source of dispute and in constant flux. See, for instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and ... this is only a partial list!). If you look back at some of these discussions, you'll see that more than one notes that the lead was changing every time someone visited the page. At last a proposal was floated and debated -- word by word at times -- until a consensus version was reached, here. That version has remained stable for over two years. It is not perfect, but it has ended years of constant changes and arguments. If further changes are to be proposed, please review these old discussions so that we do not have to go through the same arguments yet again. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can fully agree with the reasons and points you mentioned. I will work up the body to include more information about their relations, rivalry, wars, etc later on. After that, I'll make a new section on this very same talk page (and I'll ping you again if you'd like to) so we can discuss changes for the lead by that time once again. Regards - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I count 22 unused secondary sources, most of which don't deal with the overall history of Byzantine Empire. Shouldn't these be removed?-- Zoupan 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox it states that the government of the Byzantine Empire was an "Autocratic Absolute Monarchy". Links lead not to a government of that name but rather once to "Autocracy" and once to "Absolute Monarchy". That does not make much sense even though I believe I get the idea and agree with it. Autocracy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power. Absolute Monarchy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power, but is a term used in conjunction with a medieval christian european concept of "Divine Right" (or later reinterpretations to adapt it to other religions and parts of the world) and is used typically for late medieval and early modern european countries or later on until today for countries with other major religions in other parts of the world. Bottom line: 1. Autocracy contains Absolute Monarchy and 2. Absolute Monarchy is an anachronistic term. I suggest to change it to simply "Autocracy". And I am not going into the whole "Why do we need to put a simplistic label on something as complex as the government of an empire that existed for over a millenium?" thing right now. 87.151.232.141 ( talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Basic conclusion makes me dubious about that the Byzantine empire was predominantly Greek speaking throughout all the time to say the least. for example under Justinian the empire not only included the Italic peninsula and Roma but Latin was official, in addition to the numerous Illyrian tribes and some Germanics. How could be said that in such periods Greek was spoken predominatly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.47.134 ( talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The dubious tag should, if possible be removed. If the authors/editors of this page would look into it, as I believe it is a direct cause of the other post previously made by another. The Byzantine empire, although not listed as predominantly Greek by Ethnicity, was definitely predominately Greek in terms of culture and language. The citizens would have most likely have known Greek to a certain standard because it was the lingua franca of the empire. For instance, Greeks, not only by Ethnicity, but mostly by their culture and language were highly frequent in the parts of the Empire now not considered Greece. With only a short amount of research one can find that the influence of the Greek population was far reaching, helped along by the Byzantine administration and the age old spread that Greek Culture benefits from.In regards to the doubts raised by the previous post, the Romans had for centuries spoken Greek to some degree, the Empire adopted Greek culture to a moderate degree and as for the italic peninsula, in regards mostly to the southern, it was highly Hellenised even after the fall of the West and the reconquest by Belisarius and the Eastern Romans/Byzantines. That period was merely a marked transition from predominantly Roman administration to Hellenic Administration. The transition however had no effect on the culture of the land, which merely remained influenced by the Greek language and culture. The effect of the influence of the Greeks is longstanding, even visible today in those parts of Italy. As for the Illyrians, it is safe to say that by the period of Justinian they were safely Hellenised to a degree that is worthy of note. The Illyrian population began its process of Hellenisation prior to it being conquered by Rome, having began around the time of Phillip II. The process continued due to varying levels of already existing similarities. The Romans merely began their influence after their conquest, stated as having had a 'Latin influence'. The point of interest is that whilst the areas of Greek influence are clearly consolidated ( Take a look at the JirečekLine ) The Areas of Latin influence are hardly solidified, with the Latin culture and language already being transitioned to a more Greek centralised position. It is safe to say that the Greek Culture and Language, even to some degree of Religion in its various forms, was the predominant ( if not able to use a stronger term) in the the Empire. 84.254.8.199 ( talk) 17:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Byzantine Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Norwich93":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article Western Roman Empire, the status text of the infobox clearly shows it as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Western Court". Similarly for this article, it should show the Byzantine Empire as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Eastern Court (330-476)" when it coexisted with the Western Roman Empire (and perhaps with added status text "Sole court of the Roman Empire (476-1453)" for the later periods). In order to be consistent, the status text should either be shown in both articles (the preferred solution), or shown in neither articles. Thanks. -- Cartakes ( talk) 16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for reference: this text was first added by User:Jack Gaines on 11 April 2015 [30], then removed (by me) on 26 April [31], then reinserted by User:Cartakes on 27 June [32], then removed by User:Swarm on 15 August [33], then reinserted and expanded again by Cartakes on 16 August [34], then removed again by me on 7 September [35], then re-added once again by User:I Feel Tired [36] and twice more by Cartakes [37] [38], with reverts back by myself and most recently by User:Dr.K. [39]. None of the three people who inserted it made even a single talkpage contribution here during all that time, until today. What a fucking pathetic story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for this addition. I see one editor saying the demo looks OK. I agree with Fut.Perf's remarks above. This is unnecessary, undue weight, and worse, it takes us back into the Byzantine/Roman argument that has been beaten to death. We specifically distinguish between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, yet this addition confusingly calls the Byzantine Empire a court of the Roman Empire. We've been down this road too many times (see my list of links to prior arguments on this point in the discussion above, beginning with the bolded text, "Please discuss all changes to the lead"). The only use I see for this addition is for people who cannot be bothered to read the first two sentences of the article. It is just infobox bloat, trying to summarize complex content into soundbite size. It is unnecessary and introduces inconsistency at the very top of the page. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's mantain a clear distinction between the Roman Empire (that fell duiring the fifht century) and the Byzantine empire that fell in the 15th century. Moreover, I oppose to use the term "eastern roman empire" when there was not a western part. Barjimoa ( talk) 11:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing these sentences:
Rosser says nothing of the kind on p. 2, though on p. xxxvii he calls that expression "modern". A search on Google Books shows it to have been used since at least 1704, and it's also used by Gibbon, but all that's just OR. The OED doesn't have an entry for Byzantine Empire. -- Antiquary ( talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been quite bothered by the name of this article as it does not all give an accurate picture of what this empire is.The term Byzantine Empire is to me too archaic as Byzantium was the name of Istanbul when it was not the capital of the Roman Empire.Also I feel the term is misleading as it implies the Byzantine empire isn't the Roman Empire at all and also the article said it was a continuation of the Roman Empire but the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire are the exact same entities for goodness sake and most of all this misleads that all the Roman Empire died in 476 ad rather than 1453 ad. All what I'm requesting is to correct any errors in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
After this comment by Swarm, I decided to refrain from editing the lead here, agreeing that perhaps I was no longer approaching that area with a clear view. A consensus version of the lead was developed by multiple editors some time ago. I urged above for changes to the lead to be discussed before being made, but that is no longer being done. So we have returned to where the lead changes pretty much daily. Now there is a lengthy edit war going on over the "Greek-speaking" phrasing. (That language was part of the consensus version, for what it's worth.) I'll not take a position whether that version should be restored or on the current edit war. But I would urge again that edits to the lead be discussed. Having the intro change on a daily basis is not a good situation, and a name-calling edit war is certainly not constructive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
When editing any other article I would not be bothered to discuss anything as unimportant as this, but knowing how sensitive the lead section of this article is, I feel obliged to post here before changing anything myself. I would like to suggest the following, relatively unimportant, improvements:
I don't expect anything of this to be really controversial. That's it, thank you for your time. Michael! ( talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been bold and rewrote the second paragraph of the lead in line with the points discussed above, although I also inserted a sentence on Constantine, because I felt it was required by the already existing first sentence of this paragraph (which I didn't change). Michael! ( talk) 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want to thank everyone who has contributed to this article. So impressive, and I just learned so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.184.29 ( talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Their were multiple successor why is the Ottoman Empire the only listed one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:57:E36E:3841:5C09:5924:C72B:B08F ( talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it standard to transcribe all pre-Modern Greek words/names in a way that implies a classical pronunciation despite that in Byzantine times, 1000 AD to be precise, most (if not all) phonological changes were completed? For example, Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων is transcribed "Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn", with long vowels preserved: by this time, long and short vowel distinctions are lost. I am not very familiar with how Greek is to be transcribed in generally, but are classical pronunciations still followed through even for Modern Greek (IE. with β as 'b' not 'v', αι as 'ai' not 'e', αυ/ευ as 'au/eu' not 'av/ev')? If it is acceptable to transcribe these words in a way reflecting Byzantine-era pronunciation, it might be recommendable. The page on "Medieval Greek" does this to some extent, with πεδιά as "pediá" not "paidiá", and οἰκία as "ykía" not "oikía". Iotacist ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The first line under the heading 'Religion' is as follows: The Byzantine Empire was a Theocracy ruled by God working through the Emperor.
This is presented as a statement of fact. My knowledge of the Byzantine Empire is very slim, but one thing I am sure of is that it was not ruled by a supernatural being. It seems to me also that Byzantium was an empire run by an emperor or a theocracy run by religious leaders, but that it cannot have been both.
86.140.142.43 ( talk) 11:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I clarified the sentence. Ugly Ketchup ( talk) 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Byzantine Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So, I did some research onto this and the Klimata region of Crimea belonged in Byzantine hands prior to the early 8th century, and supporting this is the evidential citadel that Justinian I built in the city of Kerch. Also The use of Chersonesus as a place of Exile for Justinian II. This shows that byzantines controlled southern crimea from head to toe up to the bosphorus. I have modified the map of Tataryn to include this place. Please replace the map used in the page. Also the user above's concern is certainly an issue that needs fixing. But Im afraid I couldn't do it in the map I have produced. My link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justinian555AD_with_Klimata.png Thank you.
LaikasKruger ( talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this [45] attempt at reintroducing a "today part of..." entry with a list of modern countries in the infobox: please note that such a list was previously removed by consensus, most recently after this talkpage discussion in 2012: Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 12#List of Countries. Please don't reintroduce this without prior consensus. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Fut.Perf., with all due respect, information like that on infoboxes are required. I was the one who reintroduced the "today part of..." under an IP address, which by the way I'm not giving, before creating a new account. I regret not using consensus before reintroducing "today part of..." infobox. Other empire and country articles like the Russian Empire and the Spanish Empire have a "today part of.." entry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmuniz115 ( talk • contribs)
these numbers, from the infobox, can not be right.
" Area • 450 AD[1] 2,800,000 km² (1,081,086 sq mi)
• 555 AD[1] 2,700,000 km² (1,042,476 sq mi) "
by 555 justinian, belisarius, et al. had ADDed back about one half of the old "west" roman empire to the existing territory of the "eastern" empire.
(or 1/3 to 1/2 say; depending on what you count, & what accounting you do on the reconquered territories)
so howinthehell did the empire SHRINK BY 100,000 KM2, from 450 to 555?
{:p)
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
[...]
395 A.D. Byzantine Empire 2.1+/-.3 m,a Partition of Roman empire 450 2.8 m 486 1.6 m 527 1.9+/-.3 a,m Justian's rule starts 555 2.7 a,m Italy, N. Africa, Spain taken. Peak size [...]
So why is the 450 A.D. figure still here? What in the world did the Eastern Empire lose after 450 and before Justinian reconquered Western Roman lands? It makes no sense. If this issue is not resolved, I will delete the 450 land area. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 04:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And you MUST NOT change a figure but leave the reference intact, on the grounds that it "must be wrong".Nobody did that. The 555 AD figure is supported by the source. What they did is removed one sourced claim (on the grounds that it "must be wrong", sure) and kept another from the same source. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The "Language" section currently reads:
It then continues:
The first part of this statement ("the primary language...") is about the official language, whereas the second part is about the various vernaculars which obviously were spoken (and many written) continuously, even if they weren't official (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and other Caucasian languages throughout the Byzantine period, and Slavic and Turkic in later periods; Albanian wasn't written until the 18th century, but presumably was spoken continuously). This needs to be clarified. -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
This is more of a question than a suggestion, but should the infobox not state the name as "Roman Empire" and not "Byzantine Empire" since "Roman Empire" was the single unifying name that was used for the state throughout its history? I know that "Byzantine Empire" is a more commonly used term, especially today, but looking at other historical states, particularly closely related ones such as the Western Roman Empire and the Latin Empire, it seems like they use a more or less period-accurate name in the infobox and the more historiographically used term as the article title and throughout the article itself.
I would also like to point out that the article points to the Byzantine Empire beginning in c.330 (presumable due to Constantine moving the capital of the empire to Constantinople), which is the point at which most people tend to refer to it beginning. However, this article is also used as the article for the Eastern Roman Empire which (as common sense would dictate) began as a concept and a realized administrative unit at the same time as the Western Roman Empire, in 285 and ended when emperor Zeno abolished both the titles of "western" and "eastern emperor" in 480, at least juridically making it a unified roman empire again. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Haven't looked at the article in a while and as an observation ..
The lead section goes to a lot of trouble to describe possible events to be considered begin and end dates. Though that is appropriate to be discussed in the body, it is very distracting in the lead. I would suggest instead just broadly summarizing how the Empire split and how the East collapsed without trying to discuss specifically the differing opinions on the litany of events that people debate about. Truthfully trying to nail down exact begin/end dates is pointless if we are being honest.
-- MC 2600:100C:B006:A997:9FE:51F7:939:CAC5 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Athalaric was Theodoric's grandson, not his nephew.
65.158.174.2 ( talk) 05:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a population figure that is supposed to state the number of population. It says:
" Population
• 565 AD est. 26,000,000 • 780 AD est. 7,000,000 • 1025 AD est. 12,000,000 "
I think the above is somehow insufficient, and i suggest to expand it:
457 AD 16,000,000
565 AD 26,000,000
780 AD 7,000,000
1025 AD 12,000,000
1097 AD 5,000,000
1143 AD 10,000,000
1320 AD 2,000,000
I think it will provide more accurate picture. Note that i am not quite sure whether the numbers are accurate as there are contradictions and different numbers.
En historiker ( talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Some time now i 've noticed the byzantine empire's map of 555 is carrying some serious mistakes. The most striking is the capital mark on Rome. The empire's capital always had been Constantinople (which currently is incorectly titled Byzantium). Another mistake is the depiction of trajan's era province names in justinian's era (to many to be pointed). Could the map artist who made this please make some more research and fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.176.12 ( talk) 17:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
When people step in and change the dates for this thing can they please edit all parts of the infobox the match the new dating? I agree that 1453 should obviously be the end date but changing it from 1461 to 1453 in this quick way has made the "events" section list the fall of Trebizond as occurring on 15 August 1453. I tried to fix this but could not figure it out, can someone please fix it and put the fall of Trebizond in 1461 while keeping the end date for the empire as 1453. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised not to see the Great Schism of 1054 mentioned in the lead. I suggest the following small insertion:
OLD: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity.
NEW: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and, especially since the Great Schism of AD 1054, characterised by Orthodox Christianity. 81.131.171.56 ( talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really. That sentence is about the difference between Christianity and ancient Roman polytheism, not that between Eastern and Western churches. And Byzantium was really no more and no less "orthodox" after 1054 than before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
For contemporary Westerners such as Pope Gregory I, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Liutprand of Cremona, Paul the Deacon the chronicler of the Lombards, William of Tyre and many others the Eastern Roman Empire was considered Greek and in most Western documents the empire is called Imperium Graecorum which means a Greek Empire. Of course this addition I added saw an immediate revert by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. However - the lead talks about the various names and spelling of the names in detail - except the actual name that was most used by Western sources! I think it is critical to include the name the Empire was known by at the time by the West. Thoughts? Reaper7 ( talk) 17:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
References
So we have established. Then go find reliable sources stating
it was the West's main descriptioninstead of trying to "prove" it through your own research. -- T*U ( talk) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Lead sentence states that the RE continued in "the East". This is an inappropriate localization. (It did not continue in East Asia, nor in Eastern Europe, nor in East Africa, all possible referents for "the East", especially for non-European/American readers.) It continued in the Eastern Mediterranean.
For some reason, that is regarded as a non-standard descriptor. If a standard matters here, please replace with a standard but appropriate descriptor: "the East" isn't it. Jmacwiki ( talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: re this new version [48], sorry for being quite picky now, but I'm afraid "was the continuation of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire" is still not quite acceptable. The crucial point about this lead sentence, which was fought over long and hard some years ago, is to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire not merely in terms of parts of its territory, but in terms of continuity and identity as an institution. In this sense, it's really not quite enough to say it was "the continuation of some part" of the empire; it was the "continuation of the empire" itself, as a whole. Would "continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern parts" be acceptable? (And, as a matter of procedure, given the enormous amounts of past debate that have gone into this wording, could you please come here to the talkpage before inserting further new versions?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
In the wikipedia-page of the Western Roman Empire the period is listed as “395-476”. I think the Byzantine Empire should be listed as “395-1453” since it makes more sense geographically from my perspective.
But IF it should be an earlier timeline, then it should begin in 286 with Diocletian’s tetrarchy rather than when Constantine founded Constantinople. Moving a capital, founding a capital, converting to a new religion really do not make a new empire.
But all this is a personal perspective of mine.
What do the other editors think?:
Should it start from 286 when Diolectian became sole emperor and initiated the tetrarchy later?
Or 330 when Constantine I founded Constantinople?
Or 395 when the empire was divided for the last time?
En historiker ( talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And for the record:
/info/en/?search=Western_Roman_Empire
That wikipedia page of "Roman Empire" have "27 BC – 395 AD"
That wikipidia page of "Western Roman Empire" have "395–476"
My opinion is that 395 sounds most correct, both geographically, but also since it is more compatible with the others wikipedia-pages.
One more thing: In the German-, French-, Spanish-, Arabic-wikipedia pages all have listed "395-1453" also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
En historiker ( talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I see. Just one little thing: "Partition of the Roman Empire" did not find place in 330. So please fix it since I cannot figure out how to do it properly. En historiker ( talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
How about this:
Tetrarchy: 284
The last division of the Roman Empire in west and east: 395
I think it would make most sense, but perhaps others disagree. En historiker ( talk) 22:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
When one clicks on "Final East-West division" the link leads you to a weird page about Maximian.(??) - It would be more correct if it leads to the page about Theodosius. I don't how to fix it. If other can do it, then please do it. En historiker ( talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This reads better to my eyes. In answer to a previous question on this point, my understanding is that the separation in 395 produced two separate states, unlike previous separations: separate imperial dynasties and lineages, separate armies, separate taxation, separate political agendas, etc. -- though of course the Western RE did not survive long enough for this divergence to evolve much. Jmacwiki ( talk) 04:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I must disagree with the user above, who erroneously stated that historiography "overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330" - actually we have stark scholarly divisions over when the ERE actually starts to exist as a (*separate*) political entity. Some historians say it started back at Diocletian's Tetrarchy; others would claim that it was Heracleus' reforms that kickstarted the new realm. Most historians choose something in the middle, most likely 330 or 395. In my opinion, the Eastern Roman Empire did *not* exist in 330-395, just as the Western Roman Empire didn't. After all, how could the ERE exist in 330-395, but not the Western Roman Empire? Or would you claim that somehow both existed? The point does not sustain itself; most historians also point out that the Roman Empire was firmly united under Constantine I's hand and his immediate successors, and that during the 330-395 timeframe the empire worked as one. Our very own page for the Roman Empire ( /info/en/?search=Roman_Empire) even lists it as ending at 395, with its Western & Eastern halves "coming to life" in 395. I concede that historical accuracy is in a point of dispute over this matter and that 330 is a key year for the ERE that should be pointed out under the spotlight, but for consistency's sake changing the start date to 395 is the best middle ground. LuizLSNeto ( talk) 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
In the "Capital Constantinople" there is a "c", but when you click on it it leads you to a "b"-footnote about Theodosius.
One has to fix it since I don't know how to do it.
En historiker ( talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add please this important characteristic Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. Link1 LINK 2
The Byzantine Empire played a vital role in the formation of modern Europe and the Middle East. Between the 4th and the 12th century, it was the leading culture that set standards in all areas of life and that had a key influence on all neighbouring states. Byzantium formed a bridge between Antiquity and the Modern Age and, at the same time, between Europe and the Orient.
The series serves as publication organ for the research programme of the Leibniz ScienceCampus Mainz that studies Byzantium, its role as bridge between East and West, and cultural transfer and reception processes from Antiquity to modern times. The methods and research subjects of the various disciplines dedicated to Byzantium are brought together across traditional disciplinary boundaries in order to take a comprehensive historical and cultural approach to research into Byzantium and its material and immaterial culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.247.126 ( talk • contribs)
@KuyaBriBri. The sentence The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. is not copied (; ....it's my formulation -- 85.212.154.192 ( talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That gold coin depicting Justinian in the beginning of the page is really ugly, and it tells not much to the readers. In contrary the Ravenna-mosaic of Justinian and his men is more vivid and more byzantine-"styled", and it will make more impression on the readers when they visit that wiki-page.
Thus I suggest to remove that tremissis of Justinian, and instead use use this Ravenna-mosaic as the intro-image:
/info/en/?search=Basilica_of_San_Vitale#/media/File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_003.jpg
What do the editors think?
En historiker ( talk) 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
If it absolutely has to be a coin then perhaps this coin beneath would be a better choice simple because it is more beautiful, and more decorated than that Justinian-coin. It may look ugly when seeing a large image, but once the size becomes small in the page the coin becomes more stunning: Here is that Heraclius coin I am talking about:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius#/media/File:Heraclius_613-616.jpg
Here you can see a smaller image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius
En historiker (
talk)
19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
If any here can do the image of Heraclius and his son smaller, then please do it. En historiker ( talk) 12:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Some sort of the Antikythera mechanism was reactivated in the 500s in Byzantium, and it is the second oldest geared mechanism ever known. Look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZupgfqqZuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHq4O-ib2U
But the problem is that there are no wikipedia-image of it.
If you google "The Byzantine sundial calendar" you will find a lot images of that.
Can any of you upload/create some image(s) so I can upload them in the Byzantine-page and other pages that deal with mechanism. Because it is incredible mechanism showing Byzantine technology and its strong scientific capacity.
I hope some of you can create an image of that Byzantine sundial device.
En historiker ( talk) 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Look here:
https://twitter.com/clickspring1/status/832382420984819712
and here:
En historiker ( talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is 103kB of readable prose, which is at the far limit of WP:SIZERULE. I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length. It may be due for a review. Even though the subject is complex, and covers a long period of time, that is not a reason to keep a long article. It should be condensed (and split if required). Many of the existing sections have "see also" or "main" links, but still have lengthy entries, which should be condensed. ( Hohum @) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire lasted for over 1000 years, and not just 50, 100 or 200 years as many other states. In the 1000 years of existence the state also expanded and declined 4-5 times. En historiker ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Done Any other suggestions on what else can be trimmed?
Khirurg (
talk)
02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)