Talk:Basil II

message: The page for Battle of Kleidion says that the blinding of 14,000 soldiers is probably an exageration.  What is the consensus of historians?
:It's probably exaggerated, I reworded that bit so hopefully it reflects that now. I'll see if I can find where that claim originally comes from. Adam Bishop 04:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you state names of all those "contemporary sources"?Ive never encountered with even a single one really contemporary work who would mention such mass blinding of captured Bulgarians.All sources who mentions it are of much later date(or you wold consider queen Victoria to be you contemporary?),as well as is most probably Basil's II.famous nickname.So when he state that it is probably exaggerated,he is right.Moreover,great possibility exists that it is only a legend.Maybe a legend that have its origin in actually much smaller episode,exaggerated in later tales .--94.113.101.25 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: #One source is Chronicle of Manasses which dates 4 centuries after the event.
#Cited sources:
John Skylitzes
http://www.popovashapka.com/macedoniainfo/history/middle_early_samoil.htm#5
I don't know how reliable the above sources are, regarding the illuminated Chronicle of Manasses very few references can be found.
The best link collection is probably this one :
http://makedonija.150m.com/makedonija/medievalsourcesmacedonianhistory.htmCristianChirita 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was refering.I know there are some mentions of this blinding,but as far as I know no really contemporary exists so we could be more sure that such mass-blinding really did occuered.--94.113.101.25 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for bliding actions

message: I'm thinking the very interesting section summarizing Basil Bulgaroktonus belongs in a literary article of its own, with a citation and link in this one.
Cranston Lamont 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Adam Bishop 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see...yeah, that could probably be moved to a separate article on the book itself, if the book is at all notable. If it isn't, we should probably just cut out all the irrelevant info here. Adam Bishop 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary References

message: Please verify, and feel free to find some better pics.CristianChirita 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rm ugly pics of unexplained events; copyright status needs to be verified, too

message: I changed the title of "Bulgar - slayer" to "Bulgar - Killer", since the exact translation of Βουλγαροκτόνος is this one, from the word "κτήνω" (Ktino) = kill, and NOT the word "σφάζω" (sfazo)= slay. The translation Bulgar-slayer would have been right if the word was "Βουλγαροσφάχτης". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.0.168 (talk • contribs) 
:That may be true, but we call him Bulgar-slayer, so don't change it. Adam Bishop 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam is correct. We go by what the common use by English-speaking historians - which is "slayer" - which is smoother grammatically.50.111.26.55 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgar-slayer

message: I am proposing that the in the section about the campaigns against the Arabs that all of the instances of the word Arab be changed to Fatimids.  My reason being that the campaigns were against a dynasty originating in Egypt called the Fatimid dynasty and not was no truly even the Arab dynasties that had started in the Arabian peninsula.
:This is silly. You think the Fatamids were of Egyptian or Berber blood, and not an Arab dynasty? The native Egyptians lost their country in the fourth century B.C. to the Macedonians, and were always a conquered nation after that - Romans, Byzantines, Arab caliphates, and Ottomans.50.111.32.130 (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigns 

message: A point has been raised on Gen-Med recently that no primary source calls Anna his "sister" exactly, but rather his "kinswoman".  Can anyone provide a reliable source that calls her his sister? Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is in dispute but in any case see, Catherine Holmes. Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) (Oxford, 2005), p. 4. That should pretty much settle it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sister" Anna

message: Basil the Porphyrogenitus and Basil the Young to distinguish him from his ancestor Basil I the Macedonian, was a Byzantine emperor from the Macedonian dynasty who reigned from 10 January 976 to 15 December 1025.
This article has taken out Basil II's Armenian roots.  Basil I was Armenian, so if he is Basil II's ancestor then Basil is Armenian too.  Tracing Basil II's lineage shows this as well.  If no objections in the next few days, I will edit the article to reflect his Armenian heretage.--Moosh88 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are unclear as to the origins of the Macedonian dynasty. Basil I was the protege of a wealthy woman from southern Greece who is usually described as being Slavic in origin, the same has also been claimed for Basil himself. Some Byzantine families had well attested Armenian origins - Kourkuas - Tszimiskes - Taronites etc. but the Macedonians do not have the same undisputed Armenian heritage. Besides Basil IIs mother Theophano was Laconian  and his gt. grandmother Zoe was Athenian so he was definitely genetically more Greek than Armenian or Slavic, whatever were the origins of Basil I.[User:Urselius|Urselius]] (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Shouldn't the transliteration of Βασίλειος be Vasileios?  The β in Medieval Greek was pronounced as it is in Modern Greek.
--CimonT (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Basil II. 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/20071219151338/http://www.scca.org.mk/utb/utb2000/syn_alex.htm to http://www.scca.org.mk/utb/utb2000/syn_alex.htm
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) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tidied a few citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Taking the long view of history, the single greatest achievement of the reign of Basil II was the conversion of the Kievan Rus to Christianity and the subsequent entry of Russia into Byzantine/Orthodox civilisation. This topic could really benefit from its own section within the article and a prominent place within the assessment section. Urselius (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: Psellus was born in the reign of Basil II, he was at the heart of Byzantine imperial bureaucracy and undoubtedly had access to people of an older generation who had personally known the emperor and to anecdotes about him of very recent origin. There are two descriptions of aspects of Basil II that have been recently edited out that I think are important, and should be re-instated in some form. First - Psellus describes how Basil had a habit of twirling his side-whiskers with his fingers when deep in thought or angry. Not important of itself, but it is an almost unique insight to a habitual personal mannerism of an early Medieval monarch. I cannot think of another description of anyone living around 1000AD that is so personal in tone. As such I think it should be restored. Second - Psellus describes Basil's scorn for the learned classes of Byzantium. This has important implications. Psellus was a prominent member of the learned classes of Byzantium, and his description of Basil's less than flowing speech patterns is from the viewpoint of a man taught to speak in a manner directly derived from Classical Greco-Roman rhetoric. Basil's speech was not halting, but it was brusque and did not flow in the 'well oiled' way of a Byzantine rhetorician. The politics of the Byzantium until 1204 would be in many ways determined by the flux of power between brusque military men, like Basil, and polished bureaucrats like Psellus. The failure of the succession of the Macedonian house led to a period of domination by the bureaucracy, which, in turn was largely responsible for the military disasters of the period 1050-1084, despite the efforts of the soldier emperors  Isaac Komnenos and Romanos Diogenes. In the person of Alexios Komnenos the military aristocracy gained political ascendancy and kept it. Basil's attitude to the likes of Psellus, and its reciprocal, is therefore a pointer to a factor of quite immense importance in Byzantine history. Urselius (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will restore these descriptions of Psellus. However, as Constantine pointed out, Psellus, a primary source, is not very reliable as he is biased. Векочел (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Psellus must be considered biased when giving an assessment of his reign, as it is his opinion, which is coloured by many factors; it is rather difficult to think that he would distort Basil's physical description... On the rest, I agree with Urselius, although Kaldellis for instance has some interesting comments on the "bureaucratic domination" that followed Basil. BTW, the sources I pointed you to also contain some character assessments. Again, instead of approaching the subject in a bit-by-bit manner, I would recommend stepping back, gaining a grasp of the topic, and in the meantime honing your editorial judgment and skills on some other topic. Constantine   ✍  17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Psellus' view of Basil II was certainly biased, which is something of added interest. Where physical and mannerism descriptions of Western European figures of the Medieval period exist they tend to be reported in secondary works, especially in more populist works. For example Henry II of England's red hair, penchant for flashy short cloaks and tragi-comical outbursts of temper are referred to in many historical works. Perhaps because of its limited general interest, there are remarkably few populist works in English about Byzantine History. Most of the books on Byzantium that are available are hyper academic in tone, and as a result the descriptions of the physical and psychological aspects of individuals are few and far between. That leaves a dilemma for us, to use primary sources, biased as they may be, or to lose descriptions that make historical figures appear more human and therefore identifiable with? My inclination is towards the former. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, provided that it is made clear that the description comes from Psellus, and may not be the absolute and indisputable truth; the difference is that, while we must perforce rely on primary sources for a physical description, we should not do the same for the policies and activities of a ruler, which is what professional historians are for. Constantine   ✍  15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are adequate secondary sources available to cover policy and politics. Unfortunately, many modern historians eschew passing on both physical and character descriptions derived from primary material. I was once paid £50 (and 5 free copies) by a journal for a Napoleonic history article I wrote - just saying ;)
Just found a journal article on the physical descriptions of emperors in Byzantine writing. Have added it to the Psellus description here. Will be useful for other articles also. Urselius (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psellus' description of Basil II 

message: The following short references do not have matching full references:
* Brooke 1968
* Skylitzes 1999 (also missing page number)
* Blöndal & Benedikt 2007
* Norwich (1993) (also, this short ref uses parentheses for the year, inconsistent with the majority of short refs)
* Template:Harvnp (currently ref 137)
* Stephenson 2003
If you would like help with making the reference formatting consistent in preparation for FA candidacy, ping me from here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see what I can do. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken short references 

message: May someone tell me why I can't change the religion to "Eastern Orthodox" Christianity ? 
As Chalcedonian Christianity wasn't a real religion, it's just a periodical name.
Thanks. John.sa1025 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Latin and Greek churches were not in schism at the time, or at least neither had recognised that the conditions for a schism existed. Until the schism became 'active' there was, at least in theory, just one church from Norway to Crete and from Portugal to Anatolia. Urselius (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I assume you're mistaken because, since the Eastern Christianity (or Church) was at its own after the Byzantine Empire completely lost Rome and Ravenna. And at that time there was a Latin Church in the West in Norway and Portugal, and Orthodox Church in Crete and Anatolia, separately. And Chalcedonian title was just a name for a period, just like Nicene period. I don't say there wasn't unity between churches, they were like one, but facts need to be more clear. After all, Basil II's life is written in a synaxarion which is a daily service book for life of saints served in Orthodox Churches as far as I know, and it was written at his command. I hope my message received well to you, thanks and regards. John.sa1025 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it did not happen when the Byzantines lost Rome and/or Ravenna. The issue wasn't simply a political one. It was a slow process that culminated in the Great Schism. It is wrong to say Basil II was Eastern Orthodox, because there was no division in the Church yet. In fact, Rome and Constantinople still acknowledged each other's roles in the still united Church. A good example to look at would be Justinian I. Although he lived five centuries prior to Basil II's time, the Church was still the united Chalcedonian Church. The Chalcedonian Church refers to the united pre-Great Schism Church accepting the Council of Chalcedon, which saw Nestorianism and Monophysitism declared heresies. The same idea goes for the Nicene Church after the First Council of Nicaea, which saw Arianism declared a heresy. There was the Roman Rite and Byzantine Rite, yes, if we are talking about the lingual and traditional differences (among other things), but there wasn't a schism to call it separate yet. These differences in rite still exist, regardless of the Great Schism. As for the Synaxarion of Basil II, it is used in the Byzantine Rite. It is not exclusive to Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also used in Byzantine Catholicism. 20DKB03 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not you sure understand me, but ok if you don't need to change his religion, I myself believe he was Eastern Christian. And you did mention Justinian I, which was 500 years earlier and there WAS a Chalcedonian Christianity but NOT at 10th and 11th Centuries, and minus that Council of Chalcedon was held for religious matters but not to unify churches. I'm not saying the churches weren't unified, I say they were unified indeed, but that doesn't mean there was a Chalcedonian Christianity in name, specially after 500 years. And about the Synaxarion, you said it already it is exclusively to Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholicism (Eastern Catholic), which these both are exclusive to the Eastern rite, also called "Byzantine Rite". John.sa1025 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to each of your points. Eastern Christianity just refers to the Eastern rites. It does not consider communion, including non-Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Churches in it. The distinction between Western and Eastern Christianity traces itself back to the Occident–Orient division of the Roman Empire, where culture, tradition, language, and ritual were different. Basil II was under the Byzantine Rite, so it is correct to say he was an Eastern Christian, but that does not automatically mean separation since of course it was pre-Great Schism and, more importantly, the Byzantine Rite is not bound to the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example, today, you can be a Catholic and be considered an Eastern Christian (Eastern Catholic Churches). You can also be an Orthodox and be considered a Western Christian (Western Orthodox Churches). I mentioned Justinian I because it was the same united church that Basil II was a part of. Minor schisms had occurred during those five centuries, but they were all resolved and simply confirmed the beliefs of this Chalcedonian Church. If you say yourself that there was indeed a unified church, then I do not see the point of you saying Basil II was Eastern Orthodox in the infobox. When this is said, it draws a clear line between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and this is simply untrue prior to the Great Schism when the two were legitimately separated. And no, my exclusivity point does not hint at your point. I explicitly said otherwise, that it is also used in Byzantine Catholicism, which was contrary to you only mentioning Eastern Orthodox services since it is found in Catholicism too. Also, the Byzantine Rite is not in of itself the "Eastern Rite". The Byzantine Rite was originally known — and is still sometimes referred to — as the Greek Rite, or the Rite of [the See of] Constantinople. The "Eastern Rite" is neither a rite nor another name for one, it is simply a category for the rites of Eastern Christianity. 20DKB03 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think you don't understand what I mean and you put points here and there, I just said at first: when the Byzantine Empire lost control of the Roman see or western see, there where the east and west churches shown up, there wasn't any separation in faith, but only regional, and some traditional separation, no scheme yet. And I say it again, there's no Chalcedonian Christianity except for the period of the Chalcedonian era which maximized extend at 8th century (And refer to the Council of Chalcedon's terms, BUT not a religion). When there occurred to be two churches, separated, but not schemed yet or at least there wasn't any disputes between them until the Great Scheme. Otherwise I wonder why English Wikipedia (or you) do NOT consider Charlemagne Or Otto II & III The Holy Roman Emperor/s as "Chalcedonian" too but Wiki just put in info "Roman Catholic" instead. But mostly I think if you're a westerner and a western catholic, you couldn't understand what do I mean, (Western Orthodox Churches) has newly appeared, I just meant the Byzantine Rite is exclusive to Eastern Christians and Eastern Rites (check the link you sent, I'm not sure you read it), whatever if there is variant or not. Thanks for discussion, you can keep Basil II's religion as Chalcedonian but seems only you or few could believe that, for me, I don't believe, I have my own resources and my own knowledge which depending on them I intended to help Wikipedia and share my knowledge, apparently you refused. Thanks again, please, I don't expect any reply, please. Let's end it here. John.sa1025 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion