Talk:Latin Empire

message: A question for scholars of Latin: Does the phrase "Imperium Romaniae", as used in 1204, most precisely translate into modern English as "Empire of the Roman People" (Eastern Romans, that is, i.e., medieval Greeks) or as "Empire of the Roman Lands"? 
A question for anybody: Which of the two (regardless of how phrased) do you think would be most useful to a WP reader who might come across this page in a search?  Jmacwiki (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it literally means "Empire of Romania", so the land not the people (which would be Romanorum I suppose). To be honest I'm not sure what they really called it in Latin, but in French it was "Romanie", according to Geoffrey of Villehardouin (as opposed to Rome, the city). I imagine its Latin name would be easily found in some papal letter, though. I think to make it clear to readers, we should say that it was called "Romania", explain what that means, and note that it has no connection to the modern country. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite what I meant.  (I meant to ask, "What is the most accurate English translation, or the most useful to WP readers?", not "What Latin words did they use?")  But your suggestion seems pretty sound to me. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Byzantines were nearly always referred to as "Greeks" by the Westerners, never as "Romans", and the Latin title should not be translated as such. "Empire of the Roman lands" would be a slightly more accurate translation, but would still suggest more "Romanness" than it expressed. If I remember R.L. Wolff's article well (I might not; it is in the reference section of Roman Empire), the term imperator / imperium Romaniae was expressly used by the Latins in their diplomatic exchanges to avoid any suggestion of "Roman" emperorship and therefore competition with the Holy Roman Emperor, who claimed that title (imperator Romanorum, i.e. "emperor of the Romans"). Besides being the Greek name for the Byzantine empire, "Romania" was also in use as a politically neutral, purely topographical name for parts of the Balkans and/or Asia Minor (cf. also "Romagna"). I think it would be best to leave "Romania" untranslated. Iblardi (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A persuasive argument.  Thanks.  (FWIW, if I were the Pope or the HR Emperor at the time, I wouldn't have wanted any suggestion of "Romanness" in Constantinople, either.  But that wouldn't mean I was right. ;-)  Jmacwiki (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "Romania"? 

message: Why is there any mention of the policies of the Paleologos family in an article on the Latin Empire?  Surely these belong instead in articles on the BE (restored) or on the minor BE successor states like Nicea -- that is, states that the family actually controlled. Jmacwiki (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palaiologoi? 

message: The statement, "The Empire was intended to supplant the Byzantine Empire as titular successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, with a Western Catholic emperor enthroned in place of the Orthodox Byzantine Greeks", has several problems.  Successive edits appear to be making this worse, perhaps in the name of (false) precision.
1. It is apparently incorrect as it stands.  At a minimum, we need a reference to the assertion that it was "intended" to be any such thing!
More plausibly, it was not intended to be a titular successor at all, it was intended (after the plundering of Constantinople was finished) to function as a self-supporting state that would be more compliant with the wishes of the Italian states than the BE had been.  Answering to papal authority was helpful in that regard.
2. Asserting that it was (or was intended to be) a titular successor to the "Eastern Roman Empire" does not make sense.  States do not have titles, they have names.
3. There was no state even with the name ERE.  The BE was simply the Roman Empire: the one and only.  Yet the LE did NOT keep that name, "Imperium Romanum".  It was arguably a successor state to the BE/ERE/RE -- though I do not know if most other states of the time recognized it as such (the essential criterion for it to be a successor state).  But it was in no other sense a "successor" at all. Jmacwiki (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor to which? 

message: I have replaced the map with a colour-blind compliant version. One in eight white males are colour blind. Unfortunately, due to server problems, the thumbnail is not appearing correctly. This is a known problem and admins are dealing with it. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My revision has been reverted, as unfortunately being colour-blind myself, I messed up the colours during the conversion. Please can a colour-sighted person change this map so that it is distinguishable to colour-blind people. Thanks Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help with colour-blind compliance, I don't know how. Can you point me to a web site that gives guidance on colour-blind compliance, for future use?  But I have corrected the aspect ration of the map, it was e-w stretched. Maproom (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour blind compliant map 

message: (Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.)
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -Josve05a (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix 

message: I think that the Greek name of empire must be added in the beginning of article. --195.24.37.106 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name of empire 

message: I do not understand why this page's main title is Empire of Romania while the references to this page and indeed the page itself is the more popularly known Latin Empire as the name for this entity. This is going out of procedure here, seeing as the Byzantine Empire is called (the popularly known but historically inaccurate title) that instead of Eastern Roman Empire, or Romania, or Basileus Romaion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.238.66 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latin 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107105119/http://www2.fhw.gr/chronos/projects/fragokratia/en/webpages/frago.html to http://www2.fhw.gr/chronos/projects/fragokratia/en/webpages/frago.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion