Talk:Byzantine law

message: Come on people, you can do better than this!
Hurry it up!--DigenisAkritas 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: It seems that the tensions between Byzantine canon law and Roman canon law played a significant role during the Great Schism, although it would be best to gather sources on this. At the time, the Byzantines argued that their canon legislation was less legalistic than Rome's, even on simple matters such as historic liturgical norms. There was also a rather unfortunate tendency to regard Byzantine legislation as binding and normative, while Roman ecclesiastic law was presumed to be outside of those same Byzantine norms. Anyways, it would serve history well to examine those historic tensions between the two different codes of law. ADM (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Role during the Great Schism

message: The assertion that the Ecloga's use of maiming punishments was most likely due to the influence of Eastern customs should not be made without evidence, and requires citation.  Similar sentences can be found in contemporary legal codes in the West, notably King Alfred's Doom Book,  and were a prominent feature of Western medieval law.  This kind of attempt to establish a fundamentally "Eastern" character for the Byzantine Empire, so as to distance it from the Roman past, stems from a historiographical agenda that goes back at least as far as Gibbon.  These assertions tend to be made without evidence and are typical of laziness in Byzantine scholarship.Arodger3 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Customs and the Ecloga

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Byzantine law. 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/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak
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) 15:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not an editor, but there are some mistakes in this article, such as:
"The most important work of Byzantine law was the Ecloga, issued by Leo III, the first major Roman-Byzantine legal code issued in Greek rather than Latin."
Surely the most importantant work of Byzantine law is the code of Justinian. The Ecloga was written during the early days of iconoclasm, was widely ignored, and was abandoned a century later, while Justinian's law prevailed not only until the final fall of Byzantium, but pervasively into the modern era.
"Following Justinian's reign the Empire entered a period of rapid decline partially enabling the Arab conquests which would further weaken the Empire. Knowledge of Latin, which had been in decline since the fall of the West, virtually disappeared making many of the old legal codices almost inaccessible. These developments contributed to a dramatic weakening of legal standards in the Empire and a substantial drop in the standards of legal scholarship.[7] Legal practice would become much more pragmatic and, as knowledge of Latin in the Empire waned, direct use of Justinian's "Corpus Juris Civilis" would be abandoned in favor of summaries, commentaries, and new compilations written in Greek."
Justinian's work was compiled in three volumes. The first was originally written in Latin, the latter two were originally written in Greek. This is irrelevant of course, as the first volume was quickly translated into Greek, and the latter two volumes were quickly translated into Latin. There is simply no period of Byzantine history, where the Law Code of Justinian was inaccessible. 
Since this is specifically in reference to "Middle Byzantine Period," I should also point out that the Byzantine empire still held a province in Latin speaking Italy until the 11th century.
Maybe someone with more experience here could take a look at some of these sections  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BD05:FD00:E42A:3D07:6908:59AE (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and bizarre wording