Talk:Byzantine navy

message: Should we open up a section on the Byzantines' naval strength? As shown by number of Marines and Oarsmen in the Aegean, Cibyrrhaeot, Hellas and Samos Themes, plus the Imperial Fleet? I have the 773 to 899 numbers. Dryzen 13:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oarsmen and Marines 

message: With regard to the following statment
Although the Eastern Empire was a direct continuation of the Roman empire begun by Augustus, it developed its own unique culture and identity that in hindsight, appears to be Roman only in name.
I believe that this a fairly controversial statement given the leanings of modern historians. That is, it can be said that arguing that the late "Byzantine" empire was very different from the earlier "Roman" empire is really a lot like saying the modern United States is a different nation from that founded in 1776. Certainly such an argument could be made but the reality is that it is still the same state and one would expect that any nation changes over time. In the case of the Roman Empire there was a span of over a thousand years so one would certainly expect substantial changes over that time (certainly the Roman state when Rome fell was quite different than the state that existed when G. Julius Caesar was born). The fact that the primary language of the Eastern court changed to Greek (it had been the language of the people long before the fall of Rome) is really no different from the fact that Norman Britain switched from French back to English as the language of the court. It was still the same state with a continuity of culture (i.e. continually changing culture) regardless of the change in language.
I believe a discussion of the continuity of the Roman heritage is probably best left for the article on the "Byzantine Empire." I think this article should be more neutral on this point simply saying something to the effect that "Byzantine" is the name that western historians of the past few centuries (until recently) have assigned to the Eastern Empire after the Western Empire was lost.
--Mcorazao 16:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article spends too much time discussing the contunuity or otherwise with the earlier Roman Empire. Such a discussion is not directly applicable to the Byzantine navy, and merely makes the article appear contorted and apologetic. If no-one objects, I might cut these references down to a brief comment. --Iacobus 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor comment on Byzantine history 

message: I'm unsure at the veracity of user 71.113.102.33's adits, at the very least his numbers (unsourced) seems far too large. His delivery is also suspect. Hopefully clearity will be given.--Dryzen 15:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|71.113.102.33}} 

message: Merging some of the text describing the different varieties of dromon into the more specific article -- Matt 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dromon]] 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
Yep, no doubts there Tagmatarchos (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passes 

message: WP has a rather thin article on Medieval ships, which would benefit from some fattening from here and cross-linking, if anyone's keen.  Gwinva (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval ships 

message: The Byzantine navy comprised the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire.
Really, who'd've guessed that. JIMp talk·cont 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unencyclopedic. Reader A thought maybe "Byzantine navy" was a color. Reader B hasn't heard of the "Byzantine Empire". Such is the unglamorous, orienting purpose of the first sentence of most of our articles. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but the simple-definition aspect would still be there. Outriggr (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Nice article, by the way. Forest for the trees, as usual, around here. Outriggr (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's an opening sentence that combines the first two: "The navy of the Byzantine Empire, like the empire it served, developed directly from its earlier imperial Roman counterpart...[, but in comparison with its precursor played a far greater role in the defense and survival of the state.]" Is something like that better? It's OK, but to me a dead simple topic sentence before that idea is presented is not a bad thing, given diverse readership. Outriggr (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the reason I included it like that was pretty much as Outriggr states. It serves the purpose of precisely identifying the scope of the article, i.e. the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire, handled as a single topic, from 330 to 1453. It is more important a point than it seems. Just as an example, the "Byzantine navy" of 400 AD was, as one would expect, quite different from that of 800 AD or 1280 AD, and the point where it changed from "late Roman" to "Byzantine" could also be a point of contention. On the other hand, I don't have a particular problem with Outriggr's suggestion either. Regards, Constantine   ✍  07:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty first sentence 

message: Not wanting to be picky, but as long as the Byzantine empire existed (-1453), the Ottomans did not have a navy worth its name. They only started to field one in the late 15th century in their wars against Venice. Until then, control of the Aegean Sea, as the whole Levante, lay with the Italians, mainly Venice and Genua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control of the sea 

message: What dialect of English is this supposed to be in? --John (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Byzantine navy. 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/20091010222625/http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it:80/michaelofrhodes/ships_galleys.html to http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/ships_galleys.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505031013/http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/ships_sailing.html to http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/ships_sailing.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306070444/http://ina.tamu.edu/library/tropis/volumes/3/Tropis%20III%20Proceedings%201989.pdf to http://ina.tamu.edu/library/tropis/volumes/3/Tropis%20III%20Proceedings%201989.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725230646/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/christides.pdf to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/christides.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified