Talk:List of Byzantine emperors

message: I have closed the move debate as no consensus. In order to make it clear that the debate is no longer live, I have archived it to: Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming.  Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Should we use Hellenized or Latinized forms for Byzantine Emperors and dynasties?--Semioli
:Aw, not again... Adam Bishop 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Adam means is; see the archived pages (and the dates of the last posts.) A lot of editors have voted for freezing the situation for the time being and collecting more information. I'd suggest we stick to this plan. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not realize all of this. It was Imladjov who pointed me here on a matter about Constantinople patriarchs. Just a question: what do you mean by "collecting more information" and who is actually doing this?--Semioli 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors/naming#Moratorium:_a_modest_proposal. User:Andrew Dalby has offered to try to collect more data as to the use of the two forms, both in relation to context (scholarly- / non-scholarly literature) and in terms of time of publication, since so much of this dispute has revolved around the ratio between the Oxford forms (closer to Greek) versus the Latinized forms in recent material (thanks again, Andrew!) This decision is not binding, but has been voted for by many editors (myself included). The exact form of this investigation will be take place at a time when we've all had a good chance to cool off and reflect of this issue. Following that, data will be collected and used in a later debate on this topic. The collection of data will take time, and anyone is of course more than welcome in helping out in this task. Good ideas on how to do it in practice are also extremely welcome - e.g., it would be incredibly nice if we could find a database already containing most of the relevant publications. Alas, I do not know of any. Finding out how we could get more information on hit rates for the articles in questions might be worth a consideration as well. Given the heated nature of the last debate, I believe it would be the wiser solution to place this issue on the backburner for the time being to allow everybody a chance to think. (I sometimes wonder what the Byzantines would have said if anybody had ever told them that they'd still be controversial more than 500 years after their deaths.) Regards. Valentinian (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was never quite sure whether my proposal got consensus or not. It seems it more-or-less did. Ah well. In due course I will put a message on some of the other talk pages saying that the issue will be under consideration again in early 2007 and inviting assistance, as Valentinian outlines above. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reader on Ancient Rome/Byzantium since the age of 5, I propose a compromise. There can be two possibilities: 1) Use Latinized names for emperors up to Heraclius (with Heraclius being the last), because Heraclius made Greek the official language, or 2) Use Latinized names up to Justinian, because Justinian was the last emperor whose first language was Latin. While I personally perfer the former solution, I'll let the consensus figure out which one is right. -DemocraticSocialism (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: The article inaccurately states "The emperors between 300-600 AD regarded themselves as Roman Emperors". Every single Byzantine Emperor considered themselves to be Roman Emperors. Don't forget, History doesn't care what Historians think just as Mother Nature doesn't care what Scientific theories Scientists propose. The Byzantines called themselves Romanoi or Roman. 
I think what the article is trying to say is that the Emeprors from 300 to 600 AD were recognized by the Western Germanic Kingdoms as Roman? Anyone here say so?Tourskin 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not until Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas Day 800 that the Western Kingdoms legitimately contested the East Roman Empire's status as the successor to Ancient Rome. Until then the Emperors of Constantinople were considered the undisputed successors of Rome.Zambetis 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, the Eastern Empire's status was not contested at all. Certainly not by Charlemagne. Some considered the sole of Irene a problem - later some polemically used the term "King of the Greeks" - but no one ever contested that the Eastern Empire was Roman. Str1977 (smile back) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly the coronation of Charlemagne as "Roman Emperor" was viewed as a direct challenge to the universality of the Roman Empire in Constantinople and, like you said, the fact that a woman was on the throne at the time was a taint to its legitimacy for the West. Whether or not the legitmacy of the Roman Empire was directly contested, the coronation of Charlemagne serves as a watershed, after which the Roman Empire in Constantinople was viewed more as a "Greek" than a "Roman" entity.Zambetis 06:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There had been two Emperors in the past. The appelation "Greek" was a polemic but there never was a questioning of fact called the Roman Empire. Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor am I arguing that. "Byzantines" called themselves "Romans" down to the last day. But what I am arguing is at what point in history did the Roman Empire in Constantinople begin to be PERCEIVED as Greek. Historians use Heraclius' reign as the defining moment of "Byzantium's" "Greekification", for instance. In terms of the Western Kingdom's perception, 800 marks the most convenient date to indicate when the Western Kingdoms began to view the Roman Empire in Constantinople as something "else", mainly Greek. That was why I objected to the previous version. However, I find the current edit: "Although he and his successors regarded themselves as Roman emperors, the reign of Heraclius marks a watershed or decisive break that marks the beginning of the Greek phase of the eastern Roman Empire. After 800 AD the claim to the Roman Empire was shared with Holy Roman Empire." acceptableZambetis 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are mixing two things: the usage of the Greek language and the administrative reforms begin under Heraclius in the 7th century - and it affected the Eastern Empire big time. The changes around 800 did only in so far as the Empire's losing grasp of the West was the pre-condition for the Franks (and no other "Germanic Kingdoms") stepping in. But if you are fine with the latest wording, our dispute is settled. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Emperors 

message: Please make a list.  68.110.8.21 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Byzantine emperors really used these kinds of titles as Western monarchs did... --Jfruh (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Occasionally the title, King over Kings, Ruling over Rulers was used. Tourskin 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were their subsidiary titles, or kingdoms, principalities, etc? 

message: If Sanders believes anything he told me above, then why does he constantly make Juan Carlos out to be a pretender of Constantinople?  He's got User:Strothra breathing down my neck and coupled together, they have reinforced the opposite sentiment of what is written above and I'm now the subject of a 3RR edit war--I have replied, nevertheless.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Carlos 

message: The current format of the article is a bit confusing. It's meant to be a list, isn't it? Or it's meant to be a table? A list seems preferable from a practical point of view.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Either that or fix the table. The current format of the page is atrocious. Srnec (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: After the closing of the Constantine I move proposals, I was about propose a compromise Constantine I the Great on the grounds that it would prohibit arguments from "consistency", since I knew that other Roman and Byzantine emperors sometimes had nicknames or family names after ordinals in their titles. But when surveying the current titles for Byzantine emperors I realised just how unsystematic it really is. So I have the following questions:
#Should articles on Byzantine emperors (just who is Byzantine is another question) use nicknames at all, ever? If so, always? If not always, when?
#What about family names like Palaiologos? Even if the family name exists but the family never formed a ruling dynasty? In other words, so we distinguish between family names and epithets?
#What nickname do we use when there are several possible languages: Greek, Latin, English? Should it depend on whether the emperor's name is rendered in Greek or English? If there is no English form and the emperor's name is in English, do we go with Greek or more familiar Latin?
#When do the Byzantine emperors begin and the Roman stop? With Constantine? Leo I? Zeno? Justinian I? When do we begin a consistent "Byzantine" nomenclature?
#Do we ever need to disambiguate with "(emperor)" as we sometimes now do? Could we use Leo I the Thracian instead of Leo I (emperor), for example? Is that always an option?
#When do we need to disambiguate (in the above-mentioned way)? All the Leos are disambiguated b/c of popes, but not all the Constantines are (yet). If we go to nicknames, they will be. In that case, should the current titles redirect or be made into dab pages requiring dab hatnotes atop the emperors' articles?
Now a look at a few cases:
#Nikephoros I could become Nikephoros I Logothetes or Nikephoros I Genikos, but I don't think either nickname is overwhelmingly common. 
#Michael VI  could become Michael VI Bringas (which I think is a family, but non-dynastic, name), Michael VI Stratiotikos or Michael VI Stratioticus (I think the Latin looks better with English "Michael"), Michael VI the Warlike or Michael VI the Bellicose (I don't know how common the English is, but I think warlike is more common than bellicose), or Michael VI Gerontas (I don't know if he is ever called Michael VI the Old. That's a lot of options if we even need to disambiguate, but there is a Pope Michael VI of Alexandria and Michaels I, IV, VIII, and IX are disambiguated. 
#Constantine XI could become Constantine XI Dragases (his preference) or, in conformity with his family, Constantine XI Palaiologos. I think his current status looks odd considering all the other Palaiaologoi have a name after their ordinal and if we change the other Constantines he will have to be changed too.
Any comments? Or is this much ado about nothing? Srnec (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I'm still thinking about what to do with this... Srnec (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: I don't know if its just me but I think that the article should be split into two articles. These I believe should comprise of List of Byzantine Emperors (which already exists obviously) and Byzantine Emperor. I say this because many articles do this with an explanation of what the title is and the actual full history of the title and the list of the physical holders of the crown/s seperately. I propese a vote on this. If you would like to vote please but either a yes or a no at the begging of your message. Please put your vote at the bottom of the page and nowhere else to help keep the disccssion which will hopefully ensue simple and understandable. Thankyou. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Article 

message: This list needs a clean up just as i did on the roman emperor list. If somebody wants to helo just contact me on the user page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: What about putting as the Emperor's motto "Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλευόντων Βασιλευομένων" that was widely something refering to them, as well as the meaning of the 4B flag?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto? (or something) 

message: The excessive amount of text in the "Notes" column is stretching out the table into an unwieldy mess. I think we should get rid of that column altogether.71.179.198.254 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I think it would be best to continue the column format used on the List of Roman Emperors page, which is much easier to follow.71.179.158.141 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we get rid of the "Notes" column? 

message: Emperors Constantine Lekapenos (R 924-945, d 946), Emperor Stephen Lekapenos (R 924 -945, d 967) and Emperor Christopher Lekapenos (R 921 -931) are all missing from the list. Also Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r 1122-1142) this is not the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos this is the heir and coemperor of John II Komnenos who died before his father. Does anyone mind if I add them?
Emperors Basil reign from 960- 1025, not 976 to 1025. 976 is when he satopped using regent he was still emperor from 960 to 976 it talks about this on his page. 
Emperor Constantine VIII ruled from 962 -1028, not 1025 -1028. He was coemperor this counts as part of his reign.
Emperor John II Komnenos was emperor from 1092 to 1143. His emperorship did not start when his father died.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.215.152 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing emperors and wrong dates 

message: I have moved a previous set of proposed moves to the above subpage of this talk page, like an archive, in case it is ever brought up again. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List of Byzantine emperors/Proposed move]] 

message: Many of the images of portraits on coins are too small to make out the actual portrait. In particular, those images which show both sides of the coin are much too wide to fit well in the portraits column. Since these are portraits, the coin reverse is irrelevant and interferes. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits 

message: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO YOUR  TEXT ABOUT BYZANTINE EMPERORS . 
Ferdinando Paleologos ( coming from imperial family) who died in 1678  has a burial chamber   at the Church of Saint John in BARBADOS . 
The source of this information  is  the book named  ' Here There And Everywhere ' ,Author: Lord Frederic Hamilton,M. D. Plunkett    page :56
I JUST THOUGHT THAT MAYBE YOU  WOULD LIKE TO REVISE THE  INFORMATION  AT WIKIPEDIA TEXT : BYZANTINE EMPERORS IN EXILE .  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_emperors )
BEST REGARDS, 
ALI TUFAN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitufann (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Byzantine person in exile Ferdinando Paleologos (coming from imperial family) dead at the Rupiblic of Barbados 

message: I would like to put informations about the Caesars (vice-Emperors), but I do not know which column to use. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesars 

message: As I have observed recently, numbering of Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) has been started with Constantine I up to Heraclius. I am surprised that most of the other 100 plus emperors up to Constantine XI have been given. There are 137 official emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire and should be numbered as such to show continuity. 
It would give people who want to know how many Emperors were on the Eastern throne of the Roman Empire  (Byzantine). So whoever was the one that started numbering the Emperors beginning with Constantine, can you do so for the emperors that have not been accorded the same treatment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This numbering idea is problematic and has a high potential for OR and POV. For one, there is no clear cut-off point between the "Roman Empire" and the "Byzantine Empire". The two are actually the same entity. The list of emperors traditionally begins with Constantine I, but it is very misleading to label Constantine I (or Theodosius I, Justinian, or Heraclius for that matter) as the "last Roman emperor" or as the "first Byzantine emperor" without some major qualifications to this statement, and infoboxes are inherently unable to provide that. In addition, the line of succession is by no means unambiguous: several lists omit short-lived usurpers like Basiliscus or Artabasdos, and/or include some or all of the numerous co-emperors. Constantine   ✍  12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number System  

message: The following Emperors of the Byzantine Empire have a different infobox from the other Emperors and need to be fixed to bring fluidity to the Byzantine Emperors.
The infobox for these following Emperors need to be changed from {{Infobox royalty|monarch to {{Infobox Monarch
Michael I Rangabe 
* Constantine IX
* Theodora (11th Century) 
* Manuel I Konmnenos
* Alexios II Komnenos
* Andronikos I Komnenos 
Thank you.
 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Changes 

message: These following Byzantine Emperors have no infoboxes like their fellow Emperors and need to be created for them. The format should be that of {{Infobox Monarch to be in line with the Emperors with that type of infobox.
* Alexios III Angelos
* Alexios V Doukas
* Andronikos II Palaiologos
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperors needing infoboxes 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Byzantine emperors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150424071336/http://wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked and fixed, using earliest, not one of the latest, archive snapshots. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the final paragraph before the contents, it is stated that there were 99 emperors in total. Accepting the list as accurate, and ignoring the fact that four of these were empresses, I make the total 96, as follows:
Constantinian	 4
Valentinian	 3
Theodosian	 5
Leonid	         5
Justinian	 5
Heraclian	 6
Isaurian	 6
Nikephorian	 3
Amorian	         3
Macedonian	16
Komnenid	 1
Doukid	         4
Komnenid	 5
Angelid   	 4
Laskarid	 4
Palaiologan	10
Non-dynastic	 9
Pretenders       3
Total           96
John V Palaiologos had three reigns, being deposed twice and restored twice. Similarly, Isaac II Angelos had two reigns. It seems to me that the three 'extra' reigns have been counted as though there were three more emperors, not the same emperors reigning a second and third time, Does anyone disagree? If not, I will change the figure.
--109.152.124.55 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you can account for the discrepancy. The paragraph was added here more than two years ago, without reference or explanation, from a Swedish ISP. Maybe it's cultural. Since there's no referral to the literature, it probably counts as WP:OR anyway. If you do make a change, you might include your analysis as a footnote, so other editors have more to go on. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of emperors 

message: Could we get outside views on whether to close the proposal to merge this page into list of Roman emperors? Has time enough passed since there was a Supporting comment, or have we otherwise reached consensus? The proposal would effectively simply delete this page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking for further input, or for a formal close? If the latter, starting a RfC is the wrong thing to do - you should really post a request at WP:ANRFC#Other types of closing requests. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, done! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on merger 

message: Something I noticed in this list, and the List of Roman emperors, is the somewhat weird way the names are treated. For the early, latin-speaking emperors, their contemporary names in Latin are given, e.g. "Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus", but their names in greek are modern greek names or greek language-versions of their modern historiographical names (as opposed to the latin name for Justinian, the greek one is just translated to "Justinian the Great"). This becomes increasingly apparent with emperors being assigned numerals in their greek names (e.g. "Κωνσταντίνος Γʹ" for Constantine III), something the Byzantines did not do themselves, and using later assigned historiographical names, such as using Κῶνστας Βʹ for Constans II rather than the name Constantine, which is what he actually used himself (admittedly, Κωνσταντίνος ὁ Πωγωνάτος is listed below but only as the "formally" option). I would argue that greek might be inappopriate to use at all before Heraclius, but more importantly I would like to know why there is a difference in how the greek and latin names are used in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary names 

message: The article includes the Constantinian dynasty, Valentinianic dynasty, and Theodosian dynasty. The article on the Byzantine empire states that the Byzantine Empire "was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages." All of these rulers ruled before the Roman Empire fell. So, they didn't rule as a continuation of the empire. If Wikipedia is to be internally consistent then either these dynasties should be removed from the article or the sentence in the article about the Byzantine empire should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewf9h-bg (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperors that lived before the west fell. 

message: These emperors ruled in the West, so they don't really belong on this list. They only seem to be here because they were the senior emperors who appointed their co-emperors to rule in the East, but that seems to be too broad a basis for inclusion here. Richard75 (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Valentinian I ruled the entire empire 26 February – 28 March 364 (before Valens was appointed) and Gratian was technically also eastern emperor from the death of Valens on 9 August 378 to 19 January 379 (when Theodosius I was appointed). It's all technicalities anyway since there was no real legal division of the empire at any point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

text: There are some lists of Byzantine emperors that do include Constans I; a lot of works can differ quite a bit because what is meant by "Byzantine" differs quite a bit. A History of Byzantium (2010) includes all emperors from Diocletian onwards (including those in the west), the Palgrave Atlas of Byzantium (2005) includes Licinius, Constantine II, Constans I, Gratian, Valentinian II and Honorius (but not the later western emperors). If the criteria that are used for this list on Wikipedia is that we should include emperors who ruled the east from Constantine I onwards I agree that Constans should not really qualify; his part of the empire seems more like an "extension" of the western empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was thinking the same. Tintero21 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valentinian and Gratian (and Constans I) 

message: Is there a reason why Michael IX isn't on the list? Richard75 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael IX only held the rank of co-emperor, he predeceased his father and thus never became the "senior" emperor. Tintero21 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think he probably should be included–he is assigned a number (unlike most co-emperors) and he is one of the few co-emperors counted by the Byzantines themselves (he's in the Mutinensis gr. 122). Coins from Andronikos II's reign explicitly refer to both as autokrator (source), i.e. equal senior co-rulers (not done for other co-emperors). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I didn't know that. Tintero21 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael IX 

message: I am trying to find out how they referred to co-emperors, especially if they used the latin 'socium' or Greek 'σύντροφος', both meaning associate, either as an official term or just everyday common speech way of reference.
Middle More Rider (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 'senior' emperors used the titles basileus autokrator ('monarch who rules by himself') while the 'junior' emperors bore only the title basileus. As far as I know there was never a proper name for the office of co-emperor. Tintero21 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did they call co-emperors at the time? 

message: While both Constantines were "born in the purple," or porphyrogenitus, VII was known by the sobriquet Porphyrogenitus but VIII wasn't, so it is potentially misleading for the list to call both of them that as if it was their name. So I've removed it from VIII and translated it into Greek (keeping the link to what it means) for VII. Richard75 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine's VII and VIII and "born in the purple"