# Talk:Heraclius

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure if Heraclius has ever been depicted in (modern) pop culture.  He's an important figure but from a time period that is extremely obscure to modern people. --Jfruh (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Heraclius is portayed, and his reign forms much of the background of, the novel Theodore, by Christopher Harris (published in 2000 by Dedalus, ISBN 1 873982 49 6). Christopher Harris.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.196.118 (talk) 09:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Heraclius features prominently in Frank Schaefer's novel Whose Song Is Sung which covers the life of a 7th century Byzantine courtier. Tor Books; 1st ed edition (March 1996)
The colorful 17th century play Heraclius, empereur d'Orient: tragedie by Pierre Cornielle is also of interest. See the introduction to Kaegi's book for more treatments of Heraclius across the centuries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.205.83 (talk) 15:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Why is the quotation "Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius..." credited to Milman? It was written by Edward Gibbon, Milman is his curator, who added notes noticing Gibbon's mistakes, but the REAL writer of the quotation is the GREAT Edward Gibbon. Please, give to Gibbon what is Gibbon's, and give to Milman what is Milman's.--87.20.144.100 (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of Milman, the Sources showed Milman's edition of the Decline & Fall under M with no indication that it was an edition of Gibbon! Anyhow, there were three references to Gibbon, so I've regularized them to point to one source (Womersley's very nice 3-volume Penguin edition). Wgrommel (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

For the argument about whether to use "Byzantine Empire" or "Roman Empire" naming standards please see Nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire -- Esemono (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This from the article: "In the Islamic world, he is seen as something of an ideal ruler who studied the Qur'an, was a true believer of Islam, and viewed Muhammad as the true prophet, the messenger of God."  Forgive my ignorance, I have never heard of such a thing.  When and how did Heraclitus study the Koran?  I see that later in the article there are citations for the claims, but I think it's significant that there are no non-Muslim sources for such ideas.  This speaks to their credibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutugno (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 

Heraclius' Empire was a neighbour of the growing Islamic Empire.  Copies of the Koran were in large supply especially by the Eastern Orthodox church who were investigating whether or not Muhammad was a real prophet, they decided he wasn't obviously.  As a leading scholar of Christianity its only natural he would have some copies.  The article doesn't say Heraclitus was a true Muslim it says "In the Islamic world" they said he was, big difference. -- Esemono (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Reading and writing Arabic was not so diffused at the time of Heraclius. The story about his reading Koran is a pure islamic legend, I'm afraid. --Cloj (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about reading Arabic Korans?  -- Esemono (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the Koran was not written down until some 100 years after the time of the Prophet.  If so, then Heraclius did not read it. Cutugno (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There were copies while Muhammad was alive but the official copies weren't made until he died in 632.  Heraclius lived till 641 and he discussed religious stances with Muhammad while the man was still alive.-- Esemono (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I am doubtful about those stories in precicely the same way as I am about claims of miraculous conversions in the European Vitae Sanctorum. It certainly deserves a mention in the text that muslim tradition portrays Heraclius as very pro-islamic, but that is as far as I would go. The notion that the caesaropapist ruler of Christianity was a very likely candidate for conversion seems straight out laughable. No offence to the readily offended, but the counterpart would be a Christian source claiming that Heraclius managed to shake Muhammad's belief in Islam by a letter and the testimony of a christian dignitary. Trigaranus (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A) Wikipedia isn't about the truth it's about Verifiability.  Reliable sources say (peer reviewed journals I might add) that Muslims believe Heraclius tried to convert to Islam.  B) The article totally agrees with what you say.  The article doesn't say Heraclius converted to Islam it says: "some Muslims consider him ...", "In Muslim tradition he is seen as ...", "Islamic histories even go so far as claiming...", etc.  -- Esemono (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yup, totally with you. I'm fine with the article, it was just a comment on what has been said here. Trigaranus (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"There were copies [of the Koran] while Muhammad was alive but the official copies weren't made until he died in 632."  Esemono, I must ask respectfully, are you making this up as you go along?  Talk about VERIFIABILITY (or in this case the lack of). Cutugno (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with dealing with "works of God" like the Bible and Koran. Believers believe that these books are protected by God and so are direct from God's mouth and so there is no difference between the early books and the versions that exist hundreds of years later.  But you're right verifiability is paramount so I've tracked down the sources and put in what can be verified. -- Esemono (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All points above are moot as Islamic histories such as hadith are accepted as historical data for that region and time period due to lack of sources. And to the people arguing that it is not credible because they come from muslim sources this is a huge mistake, if historians used this as a qualifier we would dismiss 90% of the history of the world because history is rarely recorded by 3rd party sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.131.72 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 

The article currently changes randomly between use of the terms Byzantine, Greek, and Roman. To those not intimately familiar with Roman history this is very confusing. I would propose

Introduce him as the "Byzantine, or Eastern Roman, emperor".
Decide whether or not to use Byzantine or Roman for the rest of the article and use the term consistently.
Avoid using the national term Greek. Most modern scholars avoid the term in this context anyway and does nothing but further confuse the issue.
--192.88.165.35 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"devised" typical wiki cap,  use the common word willed or left  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Velalash89ko: Read the section properly please [1]: El-Cheikh notes that these accounts of Heraclius add "little to our historical knowledge" of the emperor; rather, they are an important part of "Islamic kerygma," attempting to legitimize Muhammad's status as a prophet.[71]
Most scholarly historians view such traditions as "profoundly kerygmatic" and that "enormous difficulties" exist in using these sources for actual history.[72] Furthermore, they argue that any messengers sent by Muhammad to Heraclius would not have received an imperial audience or recognition.[73] Outside of Islamic sources there is no evidence to suggest Heraclius ever heard of Islam.[74] and it is possible that he and his advisors actually viewed the Muslims as some special sect of Jews.
Thus there is no proof that Heraclius even as much as knew Islam, let alone Muhammad. Therefor it is not alleged that he had contact with Muhammad. Remove your addition or someone else will eventually remove it. You are downgrading a GA article by cherry picking sources that are in your favour. The lede should always summarise what the main text of the article says, which you have done the opposite of. Furthermore, I removed the images because there is something called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. It would be great if you read the rules of this site before anything else. Last but not least, we normally don't add citations on the lede, since it is already cited in the main text, which  it isn't even either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i have read them, but personally speaking I consider them historical,but again i did not add them. What are you trying to point out? Can you see that I've mentioned that IT IS ALLEGED...... VARIOUS SOURCES AND HISTORIANS..... nadia and  Lawrence Conrad etc.. As for the images, it was ok in the legacy section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I have 0 interest in knowing what you believe. What am I trying to point out? Well read my comment again! The so-called coresspondence between Heraclius and Muhammad is considered bogus per the section. thus it not even alleged, as it is rejected in modern scholarship. And no, the images weren't fine, READ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Also, Wikipedia:Competence is required.--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You've told me that modern historians are against me and now you are mentioning about your 0 interest. What do you mean by not alleged and no proof??? and even that bottom section needs to be edited. And stop telling me that that image was not fine, just explain whats wrong with it instead of saying to read that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, you can barely understand English, it's amazing. I can't be bothered, I'll wait for someone else to deal with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes i am not a professional speaker, but why did you edit to understand'? Why is it amazing? Yes wait for someone. You can report me, but dont forget about your offensive and vulgar slur on a religion, you can be warned too.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) 

You're more than welcome to report for me something that I haven't done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
what did you mean by ur BS, you offended the prophet of islam right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC) 

Velalash has been warned for 3RR. The Nicole source is unlinked, so we have no idea what book is being used. If Velalash wants the information in the lead, they can work to build a consensus for it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Kansas Bear Ok thanks. How to proceed then with the consensus? Also, i have just seen that there is the following article Muhammad's letters to the heads of state. There are plenty of sources.
And you historyofiran, alleged means alleged. How can u say that it is not even alleged? There truth is that they disucessed with each other. You are a racist, but anyways, there have been always racists in the world. They will get punished.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC) 

I have warned Velalash89 of the personal attack. I would ask you to strike through your personal attack and focus on content, not the contributor(s). Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
yes thats a good suggestion, not to focus on contributors racial slurs. I can see that she had problems with so many users. She gets irritated for no reason. So how do i go ahead with this consensus? Do we have to contact the adminitrators or the founders?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
To HistoryofIran. Peace be upon you. I am trying to clarify some realities pertaining to the interaction between the Prophet Muhammad and Heraclius, derived from authentic narrations. I believe, though I am no scholar or historian, that an authentic chain of narration from individuals exclusively praised for their honesty is the most reliable source of evidence for any historical account. Please forgive the ancient Islamic world for not possessing any other means of preserving history, but authentic chains of narration are all we possess from that period, buttressed by the honesty, scrupulousness and sincerity of those who transmitted. It is apparent in this section that historians from the West, perhaps out of enmity from the discordance of world views, are quick to reject authentic narrations, not on the basis of their veracity, but on the basis of what they elucidate. HistoryofIran, I kindly ask you to please consider the illumination that these sources bring on a matter so sensitive to millions of people around the world, to put aside differences on this one matter, and kindly accept the clarification and clarity the source brings on a matter otherwise unknowable by any sources outside of those Islamic. I trust you have within you goodness, because every soul is a light, and I trust you shall dismiss the negativity that may stir in your being from this proposition, for negativity is nothing but that which darkens your light. I only wish for peace between the worlds, and the institution of truth in all spaces, however subtle, such as this article on a soul who would indeed like to remembered as he truly was, a pious sage and noble emperor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC) 

The existing article text is better sourced, more balanced, and closer to our Manual of Style. I think the existing text should be retained, not the version based on traditional narrative. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Peace be upon you. I wish slander against the Holy Prophet, sent by my Lord and your Lord to perfect our characters, was more of a concern for you, but it seems that for as long as dawn breathes, falsehood will prevail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Look, I mean no offense, but this is Wikipedia, not some religious forum. Please take this somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You're forgiven, but, God willing, I hope you learn to regret on a day before you die.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you think? In classical Greek, it would be transcribed "Hērakleios" since "Ἡ"  is the rough breathing + eta (long E). Of course, later on, H, due to iotacism, was pronounced closer to I (as in Modern Greek). Right now this [English] article says "Iraklios", but corresponding articles in other languages (such as the German, French, & Spanish) say "Hērakleios"
Ll1324 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The illustration near the bottom of the article states that it depicts a sister of Heraclius named Epiphania, Martina's article says her mother was named Maria and that she was a sister of Heraclius, a brother is also mentioned in this article but not a lot of context is given to this rulers early life or relationship with his family. ★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

On Google search, born in 'Cappadocia, Turkiye'.
Herakleios Türkiye'den değildi çünkü Türkiye yoktu (Heraklius was not from TURKEY because TURKEY did not exist.)
In the article it has, born in 'Cappadocia, Byzantine Empire', so Google preview of the article and the article don't match?
Of course he was actually born in Cappadokia, Roman Empire, not the nonsense term in the article but at least it's not going full out nonsense and claiming he was born in Turkey.
Middle More Rider (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Cappadocians in the time of Heraclius were of Greek origin.  Why do they keep changing it? 71.190.162.55 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

it is pretty much historically recognized that Heraclius was half Greek. 71.190.162.55 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

why does the article insist that he was o lying Armenian but yet play cryptic when it says he was Cappadocian but not Greek Cappadocian which he really was?! 71.190.162.55 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alainprost2, please self-revert. Your changes violate at least MOS:NDASH, MOS:GEOLINK. Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Heraclius Constantine exists and Constantine III does not exist. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If that's your only problem, can I restore the rest of the corrections? Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Best regards. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This section needs to be condensed per WP:COATRACK. Even though it reflects more of the perceptions of Heraclius in the later centuries than his actual life, it takes up greater space than some biographical sections like the Byzantine-Sasanian war. Too much detail is given to a purported exchange between Heraclius and Muhammad, probably to push a view that it happened. It is illogical for this to be given greater weight in Heraclius' biography than a another page with a whole section dedicated to it. Soidling (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

suffice it to say Norwich does a lot better than Lygo, a tertiary source who asserts something in broad strokes and doesn't explain what it meant. Norwich (among others) does explain what it meant, and it wasn't one man campaigning to switch the empire from Latindom to Greekdom, but a natural demographic shift. Here's one of the three most important omnibus works on the Byzanties, Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 106:

The age of Heraclius marked a cultural as well as a political turning point in the history of East Rome. It was now that the Roman period ended and Byzantine history properly speaking began. Emphasis on the Greek element and the strength of ecclesiastical influence combined to give the Empire a new appearance. The early Byzantine state had clung with astonishing tenacity to Latin as the official language and it only yielded slowly and reluctantly to the steady predominance of Greek, without making any open and decisive change.
Treadgold and Kaldellis, the other two, are likewise intelligent about it. 
in any case, you're not going to be allowed to directly graft new material into the lead, which is a balanced summary of the article body. 
Remsense ‥ 论 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is how I see it: we want to make these changes the right way for readers, and since the lead summarizes the body, there has to be a fairly significant cited discussion of this in the article body, which the lead can then briefly summarize without inline citation. Here is the issue, again: while this is certainly an important process that took place during his reign, it was not really his personal doing, so what we can't do is assign events in the age of Heraclius to being deeds of the man himself. I think specific acts on his part could be mentioned in the existing legacy section, but I don't think it would be proportional to then stick such a mention in the lead also. Remsense 🌈 论 23:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)