# Talk:Basil II

The page for Battle of Kleidion says that the blinding of 14,000 soldiers is probably an exageration.  What is the consensus of historians?

It's probably exaggerated, I reworded that bit so hopefully it reflects that now. I'll see if I can find where that claim originally comes from. Adam Bishop 04:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Probably is not definitely, all contemporary sources state he blinded 14,000 soldiers so until you can find some soures which can prove otherwise your statements are just POV and will be removed  Struscle 13:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you state names of all those "contemporary sources"?Ive never encountered with even a single one really contemporary work who would mention such mass blinding of captured Bulgarians.All sources who mentions it are of much later date(or you wold consider queen Victoria to be you contemporary?),as well as is most probably Basil's II.famous nickname.So when he state that it is probably exaggerated,he is right.Moreover,great possibility exists that it is only a legend.Maybe a legend that have its origin in actually much smaller episode,exaggerated in later tales .--94.113.101.25 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One source is Chronicle of Manasses which dates 4 centuries after the event.
Cited sources:
John Skylitzes
http://www.popovashapka.com/macedoniainfo/history/middle_early_samoil.htm#5
I don't know how reliable the above sources are, regarding the illuminated Chronicle of Manasses very few references can be found.
The best link collection is probably this one :
http://makedonija.150m.com/makedonija/medievalsourcesmacedonianhistory.htmCristianChirita 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what I was refering.I know there are some mentions of this blinding,but as far as I know no really contemporary exists so we could be more sure that such mass-blinding really did occuered.--94.113.101.25 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the very interesting section summarizing Basil Bulgaroktonus belongs in a literary article of its own, with a citation and link in this one.
Cranston Lamont 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Adam Bishop 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My thinking was that the book discussion concerned, not Basil's life, but a novel based on his life.  But that's as far as I care to push my personal opinion.
Cranston Lamont 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see...yeah, that could probably be moved to a separate article on the book itself, if the book is at all notable. If it isn't, we should probably just cut out all the irrelevant info here. Adam Bishop 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please verify, and feel free to find some better pics.CristianChirita 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title of "Bulgar - slayer" to "Bulgar - Killer", since the exact translation of Βουλγαροκτόνος is this one, from the word "κτήνω" (Ktino) = kill, and NOT the word "σφάζω" (sfazo)= slay. The translation Bulgar-slayer would have been right if the word was "Βουλγαροσφάχτης". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.0.168 (talk • contribs) 

That may be true, but we call him Bulgar-slayer, so don't change it. Adam Bishop 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam is correct. We go by what the common use by English-speaking historians - which is "slayer" - which is smoother grammatically.50.111.26.55 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am proposing that the in the section about the campaigns against the Arabs that all of the instances of the word Arab be changed to Fatimids.  My reason being that the campaigns were against a dynasty originating in Egypt called the Fatimid dynasty and not was no truly even the Arab dynasties that had started in the Arabian peninsula.

This is silly. You think the Fatamids were of Egyptian or Berber blood, and not an Arab dynasty? The native Egyptians lost their country in the fourth century B.C. to the Macedonians, and were always a conquered nation after that - Romans, Byzantines, Arab caliphates, and Ottomans.50.111.32.130 (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A point has been raised on Gen-Med recently that no primary source calls Anna his "sister" exactly, but rather his "kinswoman".  Can anyone provide a reliable source that calls her his sister? Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is in dispute but in any case see, Catherine Holmes. Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) (Oxford, 2005), p. 4. That should pretty much settle it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat disconcerting to see that sources dating back to 1851 are being used extensively to sources material in this article. While they might not necessarily conflict with some well-known details of Basil's life, might it not be wiser to direct readers to more updated – and thus more accessible – literature? Though I have yet to read it, Catherine Holmes' recent work, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025), concerns the life of Basil and might prove a better source. Mark Whittow's Making of [Orthodox] Byzantium would also make another reliable source for Basil's reign as well. A clarification of the publication details of sources (case in point, the use of the Russian Primary Chronicle – which edition? which translation?) would also be most welcome. Some food for thought. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points. Any reference is better than no reference at all, which was essentially the case before I began editing this article. Very little narrative history is written these days. Narrative history does not date in the way that interpretative history does so that the use of old narrative history (if contemporary interpretation is eschewed) is academically valid, as long as no important new primary sources have been discovered since it was written. Most importantly Finlay is the only source available online which goes into any useful detail concerning the conquest of Bulgaria. History isn't nuclear physics, things written in 1850 or 1900 about a historical subject can still be valid; indeed in these days of competitive academics looking for tenure and high book sales there is a pressure to come up with "novel" approaches to subjects, which may prove to be extreme and biased, that did not influence the historians of old.
The Primary Chronicle reference (in the bibliography section at the foot of the page) gives the publisher, editors/translators and date, surely enough information for any interested person to track it down with.Urselius (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree with Urselius' remarks, Bagramyan does make a good point: aside from the historical narrative itself, our perceptions of what Basil did, how and why he did it have changed a lot since Finlay. It has been demonstrated that he actually promoted the military aristocracy to high office during his reign, for instance, while in the 19th century he was still regarded as the champion of the poor soldier-farmers and all that. Also, Paul Stephenson does raise some interesting points on the traditional interpretation of the historical narrative itself, re the war with Bulgaria (a potential truce between Spercheios and Kleidion). In short, the article does need more input from recent sources, especially if we want a deeper analysis of his reign. Constantine   ✍  15:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I intended introducing some more modern references, but there are huge gaps in all the modern works I've seen concerning the campaigns against Bulgaria. Most mention Spercheios and Kleidion and often very little else. If you have a full list of all the actions it becomes clear that there was a definite plan to Basil's war - make inroads into Moesia, then clear the area around Thessalonica, push from Philippopolis to the Danube at Vidin to cut off Moesia from Macedonia, absorb the remainder of Moesia, isolate highland Macedonia from all sides then grind down all futher resistance from the Bulgaro-Macedonian aristocracy by continued military pressure, bribery and threats. This is shown in greatest detail by Finlay, from modern sources Haldon, Fine and others have to be stitched together to form anything as useful. This is something I wanted to do but I have had little time to do so recently.Urselius (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Basil the Porphyrogenitus and Basil the Young to distinguish him from his ancestor Basil I the Macedonian, was a Byzantine emperor from the Macedonian dynasty who reigned from 10 January 976 to 15 December 1025.
This article has taken out Basil II's Armenian roots.  Basil I was Armenian, so if he is Basil II's ancestor then Basil is Armenian too.  Tracing Basil II's lineage shows this as well.  If no objections in the next few days, I will edit the article to reflect his Armenian heretage.--Moosh88 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources are unclear as to the origins of the Macedonian dynasty. Basil I was the protege of a wealthy woman from southern Greece who is usually described as being Slavic in origin, the same has also been claimed for Basil himself. Some Byzantine families had well attested Armenian origins - Kourkuas - Tszimiskes - Taronites etc. but the Macedonians do not have the same undisputed Armenian heritage. Besides Basil IIs mother Theophano was Laconian  and his gt. grandmother Zoe was Athenian so he was definitely genetically more Greek than Armenian or Slavic, whatever were the origins of Basil I.[User:Urselius|Urselius]] (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
@Moosh88 Just because one's father (or more distant ancestor) was of one nationality, doesn't mean oneself has to be of the same. If that were true, there couldn't be any Americans — they'd all still be Brits, Italians, Poles, etc. -- CRConrad (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The Byzantine chronicler Ephraim was the first who named Basil II - “Bulgar-slayer” about 400 years after the emperor’s reign (Ephraim: Aenii Historia Chronica, Athens, 1990, pg. 109). By then (400 years latter), when the reference “Bulgar-slayer” was used for the first time, the term “Bulgarians” (Vulgaroi) was completely adopted by the Byzantines, as a designating exonym for the peoples also called “South Slavs” that they had fought against (Stilpon Kyriakides: The Northern Ethnological Boundaries of Hellenism, Tessalonica, 1955, pg. 37 ; Krste P. Misirkov: „За македонцките работи“ (On the Macedonian matters), Sofia, 1903, pg. 117, 122).
If someone says I’m wrong, I need sources. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The first recorded coupling of the term Boulgaroktonos with Basil II dates from a number of generations after his death, when it is used in a poem from the reign of Manuel I Komnenos, dating to around 1166.Stephenson, p. 89 - Stephenson, Paul (2003). The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81530-4
Stephenson says "Basil is not called Voulgaroktonos in the body of the poem, but this epithet does appear in the introductory lemma. The lemma was added to explain the original location and context of the poem..." Do we know when was the lemma added? Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, what do we know about this poem? What's the title? Who wrote it? Where's it written? Stephenson doesn't give us much information. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you read Stephenson's book? The reference is there, the poem is approximately dated and is a perfectly fine primary source. Constantine   ✍  08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyhow, seeing as the lemma of the poem in question is quite likely a later (13th century) addition, I am removing it from the article. The gist of Stephenson's argument about the epithet coming into widespread use in the later 12th century remains unaltered, as Choniates, Mesarites and Kaloyan attest to it. Constantine   ✍  08:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the transliteration of Βασίλειος be Vasileios?  The β in Medieval Greek was pronounced as it is in Modern Greek.
--CimonT (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Basil II. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219151338/http://www.scca.org.mk/utb/utb2000/syn_alex.htm to http://www.scca.org.mk/utb/utb2000/syn_alex.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tidied a few citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Basil II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


### Criteria
No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations N
@20DKB03: The article is missing citations in many places. The missing citations will need to be fixed before the review can continue. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Iazyges: I have now added all the citations that were needed. 20DKB03 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


### Prose Suggestions
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

having been associated on the throne since 960. suggest:
having been associated with'the throne since 960. or having been elevated to co-emperor since 960.
but not without the help of 12,000 Georgians of Tornikios and David III Kuropalates of Tao. suggest:
with the help of 12,000 Georgians of Tornikios and David III Kuropalates of Tao.
which his predecessor, Romanos I, had endeavored to check suggest:
which his predecessor, Romanos I, had endeavored to check late into his reign.
Samuel and his son Gabriel were lucky to escape capture. suggest:
Samuel and his son Gabriel were barely able to escape capture.
he was said to have captured 15,000 prisoners and blinded 99 of every 100 men suggest:
he was said to have captured 15,000 prisoners and fully blinded 99 of every 100 men
 Assessment suggest:
Physical assessment or Physical description
@20DKB03: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Taking the long view of history, the single greatest achievement of the reign of Basil II was the conversion of the Kievan Rus to Christianity and the subsequent entry of Russia into Byzantine/Orthodox civilisation. This topic could really benefit from its own section within the article and a prominent place within the assessment section. Urselius (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Psellus was born in the reign of Basil II, he was at the heart of Byzantine imperial bureaucracy and undoubtedly had access to people of an older generation who had personally known the emperor and to anecdotes about him of very recent origin. There are two descriptions of aspects of Basil II that have been recently edited out that I think are important, and should be re-instated in some form. First - Psellus describes how Basil had a habit of twirling his side-whiskers with his fingers when deep in thought or angry. Not important of itself, but it is an almost unique insight to a habitual personal mannerism of an early Medieval monarch. I cannot think of another description of anyone living around 1000AD that is so personal in tone. As such I think it should be restored. Second - Psellus describes Basil's scorn for the learned classes of Byzantium. This has important implications. Psellus was a prominent member of the learned classes of Byzantium, and his description of Basil's less than flowing speech patterns is from the viewpoint of a man taught to speak in a manner directly derived from Classical Greco-Roman rhetoric. Basil's speech was not halting, but it was brusque and did not flow in the 'well oiled' way of a Byzantine rhetorician. The politics of the Byzantium until 1204 would be in many ways determined by the flux of power between brusque military men, like Basil, and polished bureaucrats like Psellus. The failure of the succession of the Macedonian house led to a period of domination by the bureaucracy, which, in turn was largely responsible for the military disasters of the period 1050-1084, despite the efforts of the soldier emperors  Isaac Komnenos and Romanos Diogenes. In the person of Alexios Komnenos the military aristocracy gained political ascendancy and kept it. Basil's attitude to the likes of Psellus, and its reciprocal, is therefore a pointer to a factor of quite immense importance in Byzantine history. Urselius (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Urselius: I will restore these descriptions of Psellus. However, as Constantine pointed out, Psellus, a primary source, is not very reliable as he is biased. Векочел (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Векочел: Psellus must be considered biased when giving an assessment of his reign, as it is his opinion, which is coloured by many factors; it is rather difficult to think that he would distort Basil's physical description... On the rest, I agree with Urselius, although Kaldellis for instance has some interesting comments on the "bureaucratic domination" that followed Basil. BTW, the sources I pointed you to also contain some character assessments. Again, instead of approaching the subject in a bit-by-bit manner, I would recommend stepping back, gaining a grasp of the topic, and in the meantime honing your editorial judgment and skills on some other topic. Constantine   ✍  17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Psellus' view of Basil II was certainly biased, which is something of added interest. Where physical and mannerism descriptions of Western European figures of the Medieval period exist they tend to be reported in secondary works, especially in more populist works. For example Henry II of England's red hair, penchant for flashy short cloaks and tragi-comical outbursts of temper are referred to in many historical works. Perhaps because of its limited general interest, there are remarkably few populist works in English about Byzantine History. Most of the books on Byzantium that are available are hyper academic in tone, and as a result the descriptions of the physical and psychological aspects of individuals are few and far between. That leaves a dilemma for us, to use primary sources, biased as they may be, or to lose descriptions that make historical figures appear more human and therefore identifiable with? My inclination is towards the former. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I also agree, provided that it is made clear that the description comes from Psellus, and may not be the absolute and indisputable truth; the difference is that, while we must perforce rely on primary sources for a physical description, we should not do the same for the policies and activities of a ruler, which is what professional historians are for. Constantine   ✍  15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that there are adequate secondary sources available to cover policy and politics. Unfortunately, many modern historians eschew passing on both physical and character descriptions derived from primary material. I was once paid £50 (and 5 free copies) by a journal for a Napoleonic history article I wrote - just saying ;)
Just found a journal article on the physical descriptions of emperors in Byzantine writing. Have added it to the Psellus description here. Will be useful for other articles also. Urselius (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The following short references do not have matching full references:

Brooke 1968
Skylitzes 1999 (also missing page number)
Blöndal & Benedikt 2007
Norwich (1993) (also, this short ref uses parentheses for the year, inconsistent with the majority of short refs)
Template:Harvnp (currently ref 137)
Stephenson 2003
If you would like help with making the reference formatting consistent in preparation for FA candidacy, ping me from here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Let me see what I can do. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the "later years" section, it is stated that "During the pillage of 1204, Basil's grave was desecrated by the invading Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade". However, the given source simply states that "even the tombs of emperors, including that of the great Justinian I, were opened up and their precious contents removed". Even if it appears likely that the desecration of Basil's grave did really happen, I believe that we need a more specific source backing this claim. A similar story also appears at Epitaph on the tomb of Basil II where it is also reported that the corpse was dumped into the street, yet none of the sources used there seem to mention the issue.
I remember having read somewhere that when Constantinople was retaken in 1261, the Greeks found Basil's corpse on a rooftop with a flute in his hands, mockingly arranged to look like he was playing it. Unfortunately I can't recall where I did read it and if it were a reliable source. Khruner (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

By 1204, the body would have been long decayed.
They knew embalming methods, the many references to the incorruptible bodies of saints, ascribed at the time to their holiness, tends to suggest that in some cases the embalming was very effective. Urselius (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

May someone tell me why I can't change the religion to "Eastern Orthodox" Christianity ? 
As Chalcedonian Christianity wasn't a real religion, it's just a periodical name.
Thanks. John.sa1025 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the Latin and Greek churches were not in schism at the time, or at least neither had recognised that the conditions for a schism existed. Until the schism became 'active' there was, at least in theory, just one church from Norway to Crete and from Portugal to Anatolia. Urselius (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I assume you're mistaken because, since the Eastern Christianity (or Church) was at its own after the Byzantine Empire completely lost Rome and Ravenna. And at that time there was a Latin Church in the West in Norway and Portugal, and Orthodox Church in Crete and Anatolia, separately. And Chalcedonian title was just a name for a period, just like Nicene period. I don't say there wasn't unity between churches, they were like one, but facts need to be more clear. After all, Basil II's life is written in a synaxarion which is a daily service book for life of saints served in Orthodox Churches as far as I know, and it was written at his command. I hope my message received well to you, thanks and regards. John.sa1025 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it did not happen when the Byzantines lost Rome and/or Ravenna. The issue wasn't simply a political one. It was a slow process that culminated in the Great Schism. It is wrong to say Basil II was Eastern Orthodox, because there was no division in the Church yet. In fact, Rome and Constantinople still acknowledged each other's roles in the still united Church. A good example to look at would be Justinian I. Although he lived five centuries prior to Basil II's time, the Church was still the united Chalcedonian Church. The Chalcedonian Church refers to the united pre-Great Schism Church accepting the Council of Chalcedon, which saw Nestorianism and Monophysitism declared heresies. The same idea goes for the Nicene Church after the First Council of Nicaea, which saw Arianism declared a heresy. There was the Roman Rite and Byzantine Rite, yes, if we are talking about the lingual and traditional differences (among other things), but there wasn't a schism to call it separate yet. These differences in rite still exist, regardless of the Great Schism. As for the Synaxarion of Basil II, it is used in the Byzantine Rite. It is not exclusive to Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also used in Byzantine Catholicism. 20DKB03 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not you sure understand me, but ok if you don't need to change his religion, I myself believe he was Eastern Christian. And you did mention Justinian I, which was 500 years earlier and there WAS a Chalcedonian Christianity but NOT at 10th and 11th Centuries, and minus that Council of Chalcedon was held for religious matters but not to unify churches. I'm not saying the churches weren't unified, I say they were unified indeed, but that doesn't mean there was a Chalcedonian Christianity in name, specially after 500 years. And about the Synaxarion, you said it already it is exclusively to Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholicism (Eastern Catholic), which these both are exclusive to the Eastern rite, also called "Byzantine Rite". John.sa1025 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I responded to each of your points. Eastern Christianity just refers to the Eastern rites. It does not consider communion, including non-Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Churches in it. The distinction between Western and Eastern Christianity traces itself back to the Occident–Orient division of the Roman Empire, where culture, tradition, language, and ritual were different. Basil II was under the Byzantine Rite, so it is correct to say he was an Eastern Christian, but that does not automatically mean separation since of course it was pre-Great Schism and, more importantly, the Byzantine Rite is not bound to the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example, today, you can be a Catholic and be considered an Eastern Christian (Eastern Catholic Churches). You can also be an Orthodox and be considered a Western Christian (Western Orthodox Churches). I mentioned Justinian I because it was the same united church that Basil II was a part of. Minor schisms had occurred during those five centuries, but they were all resolved and simply confirmed the beliefs of this Chalcedonian Church. If you say yourself that there was indeed a unified church, then I do not see the point of you saying Basil II was Eastern Orthodox in the infobox. When this is said, it draws a clear line between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and this is simply untrue prior to the Great Schism when the two were legitimately separated. And no, my exclusivity point does not hint at your point. I explicitly said otherwise, that it is also used in Byzantine Catholicism, which was contrary to you only mentioning Eastern Orthodox services since it is found in Catholicism too. Also, the Byzantine Rite is not in of itself the "Eastern Rite". The Byzantine Rite was originally known — and is still sometimes referred to — as the Greek Rite, or the Rite of [the See of] Constantinople. The "Eastern Rite" is neither a rite nor another name for one, it is simply a category for the rites of Eastern Christianity. 20DKB03 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I just think you don't understand what I mean and you put points here and there, I just said at first: when the Byzantine Empire lost control of the Roman see or western see, there where the east and west churches shown up, there wasn't any separation in faith, but only regional, and some traditional separation, no scheme yet. And I say it again, there's no Chalcedonian Christianity except for the period of the Chalcedonian era which maximized extend at 8th century (And refer to the Council of Chalcedon's terms, BUT not a religion). When there occurred to be two churches, separated, but not schemed yet or at least there wasn't any disputes between them until the Great Scheme. Otherwise I wonder why English Wikipedia (or you) do NOT consider Charlemagne Or Otto II & III The Holy Roman Emperor/s as "Chalcedonian" too but Wiki just put in info "Roman Catholic" instead. But mostly I think if you're a westerner and a western catholic, you couldn't understand what do I mean, (Western Orthodox Churches) has newly appeared, I just meant the Byzantine Rite is exclusive to Eastern Christians and Eastern Rites (check the link you sent, I'm not sure you read it), whatever if there is variant or not. Thanks for discussion, you can keep Basil II's religion as Chalcedonian but seems only you or few could believe that, for me, I don't believe, I have my own resources and my own knowledge which depending on them I intended to help Wikipedia and share my knowledge, apparently you refused. Thanks again, please, I don't expect any reply, please. Let's end it here. John.sa1025 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Psellos described Basil II as, "... it [Basil's appearance] betrayed the natural nobility of the man, for his eyes were light-blue and fiery ... they shone with a brilliance that was manly." Psellos describes Basil's eyebrows as arched and his face as rounded, this being the result of his luxuriant side-whiskers. Nowhere does Psellos give any intimation that Basil was in any way considered unattractive physically, quite the opposite. Psellos was a member of the elite of the Byzantine bureaucracy and intelligentsia, his problem with Basil II was the perceived coarseness of his behaviour, not his appearance. Basil II was a soldier's soldier, a man of action not words. He did not speak like a courtier, in well rounded phrases aping Classical Greek (Koine), he spoke straightforwardly and despised the, often effete, class that Psellos belonged to.
As for John Julius Norwich's description, it is not the only case of a certain embroidering of historical sources that he is guilty of. He tells a good story and sometimes the story comes before verifiable historical fact. Urselius (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, having checked the text. Funnily enough, before I checked I had in the back of my mind that Psellos had described him as ugly. It must have been Norwich sowing the seed! DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Soidling: re this. WP:UNDUE seems overkill. Norwich's opinion is, I think, something in itself to be noted given his prominence. Perhaps not on the same scale, but Gibbon came out with all sorts of indefensible opinion but it's still noteworthy nevertheless. I think it would be better to keep the quote and find a source that comments on it. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@DeCausa, I understand your view but I think there is a difference in notability when comparing Gibbon and Norwich. Gibbon's opinions are no longer taken seriously but being one of the most influential scholars, they are still being debated today. Norwich's opinion is also in the "Physical appearance and personality" section, which is less fitting than the descriptions of actual contemporaries like Michael Psellos. I additionally think George Finlay's opinion should be removed from that section, but he doesn't give us false descriptions of Basil's physical appearance like Norwich did. How about moving their views to the Assessment section? Though I have reservations about Norwich's opinions as he does not seem to be an academic. Soidling (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)