Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 5

message: I believe that the 'legacy' section is inadequate and unfair. There is no mention in the preservation of Greek/Roman arts, sciences and texts during the Byzantine era; no mention in the transmission of the Greek/Roman/Byzantine knowledge through the byzantine emigres and their crucial contribution to renaissance;no mention on Byzantine achievements such as in the law, monetary, military and naval system. I understand that some of these issues are covered partly in other sections. However i think that its more appropriate to have them at the this section that talks specifically about the legacy. On the contrary, as the section stands now, seems too little for an empire of 11 centuries  and that most scholars today agree on its contribution to modern European culture; Sopecifically, it says that 'Byzantine culture is important, because of two lines of transmission' to Islam and Slavs. These are of course significant but this phraseology undermine the significance of the direct transmission of the byzantine culture to the west either through westerner scholars or through byzantine immigrants. Not to mention that while there is no space for an influence to the Renaissance movement there is plenty of talk on the preoccupation of the west in the effeminate character of Byzantium (?). I dont mind to do the changes if we all agree. Ipodamos 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: I noticed that Asia Minor in 717 was too big for Byzantium - indeed, wasn't there an arab siege of Constantinople at the time? Besides, the victory of Akroinon that the Byzantines won against the arabs - happened in 732, well after 717. Therefore, much of central and eastern Anatolia was occupied and considering that were was a siege of Constantinople, it would not be unreasonable to assume the whole of Asia Minor had fallen. Therefore with this logic, I propose that this map by BigDaddy1204 (no offence, your artices are awesome!):
|left
left|be replaced with this one:
Caption: Stripped land shows de facto Arab control and "no man's land"
By the way, this reference:
Haldon, John. Byzantium at War 600 - 1453. New York: Osprey, 2000.
Describes Asia Minor as a no man's land, so I have a little backing. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right and that my picture is Imperial authority...
Tourskin 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the siege of 717/18 seaborne though, and didn't the Byzantines still hold the Taurus region? Iblardi 13:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears this is not the case. Vasiliev (1952) gives you some backing too: "The Arabian forces on land passed through all of Asia Minor to the west, even during the reign of the two predecessors of Leo, and occupied Sardis and Pergamus, near the shores of the Aegean Sea." Apparently, the Arabs were pretty much running rampant in Asia Minor. Iblardi 13:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, so then it sounds like I should just get rid of all "purple Byzantine" bits in Asia Minor. I shall upload the new map then which shows no Asia Minor.Tourskin 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ho, hold your camels. This new map makes it appear as if every town in Asia Minor was occupied by the Arabs in 717. That is not what the sources are saying. My own source at least may indicate no more than that Arab armies were moving through the territory and (temporarily) occupied at least some towns, and that the Byzantines were unable to stop them. I'd propose being conservative for now and keeping the first map until it has been sorted out. Iblardi 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that one could be argued for. Iblardi 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That one doesn't count. Melitene is near the Euphrates, east of the Taurus, which was the eastern frontier of the empire for centuries. Iblardi 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Arab presence in Asia Minor should not be over-emphasised. The (proto?-)theme system remained in place. Iblardi 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Postscript: Melitine, although (_just_) west of the Euphrates, is perhaps more properly "northern Mesopotamia" than "Asia Minor". But that's just semantics. --Javits2000 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-postscript: the Haldon maps are definitely copyrighted & not uploadable, but anyone with cartographic skills who'ld like to see them should feel free to send me an email & i'll send a scan. --Javits2000 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hold those Kataphraktoi... 

message: There appears to be a problem with the copyright of the current picture of Justinian; a couple of days ago, a bot went around and replaced the same image in the Justinian and other articles with this one, which I find rather dull. I was also wondering about the relevancy of the (19th-century) portrait of pope Agapetus I, which is accidentally squeezing together the text of the article, with Justinian on the other side. Iblardi 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The article states: "[Constantinople] was a superb base from which to guard the Danube and Tanais rivers". The link points to Tanais as being the old name for the Don - hardly a vital Roman boundary (if they ever held the territory at all). What was the writer talking about? Patrick Neylan 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Tanais River? 

message: Since it seems to have been decided to have Byzantine Empire as a short summary page, with the real detail contained in a series of smaller articles dealing with each period in more detail, shown by link at Byzantine Empire, I have some material to contribute to a sub-article concerning the Komnenian period. I propose that the new page I have created for this material, entitled 'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', be linked into Byzantine Empire, as the start of a project which will eventually enable (contributors willing) all topics to be covered in equal detail. What are your thoughts? Bigdaddy1204 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Komnenian Restoration only? I think that the restoration of teh empire summs everything up in that period. see my later comment.
By the way, alot of the Fall section (that I had added) has been deleted without so much a word... and it was well-referenced!Tourskin 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that you have raised the issue, I think we need another article for the "Fall" section of the Byzantine Empire. The Decline of the Byzantine Empire article is a mere chronological list of events that bled the Empire to death and not specifically associated with the actual "Fall" between the 13th and 15th centuries. I am open to any suggestions as to what it could be named - how about Byzantium under the Palaiologoi? If thats accepted then Byzantium under the Komnenoi sounds reasonable and within a similar convention. Then we could have Byzantium under the Heraclean, Byzantium under the Isaurian, Byzantium under the Macedonian and so forth.
Tourskin 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work on the new article. I think that, once we have completed the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi, our next target should be the Isaurian dynasty; as it is, the Byzantine Empire article is completely distorted, since the years 711-867 are covered in the space of barely a paragraph, whilst other sections are covered in far more detail. The 8th/9th century was important, as it saw the establishment of the Bulgarians on former imperial territory, the stunning Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Pliska, and many important events in both Italy, such as the loss of Rome and Ravenna, and elsewhere in the empire. A new article covering this period in more detail needs to be created. What are your thoughts? Bigdaddy1204 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smaller articles, dealing with specific periods in more detail

message: Should we make such an article? Is there such an article? It migtht go with the decision to split into smaller articles.Tourskin 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine-Latin Wars 

message: This article is linked in the "Fall" section of teh paragraph. However, the article itself does not just mention the events from the 13the century to the 15th century, so it should be moved elsewhere. Tourskin 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline of the Empire 

message: I have the map, Image:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo.PNG
The striped bit makes it look ugly but lets the reader know what the Arabs were raidingTourskin 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look good. This map, at least in Italy, appears to be based on Haldon's 650-700 map; his 717 map does indeed show Ravenna & Rome divided (Lombards, presumably). --Javits2000 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, Tourskin! This is perhaps the best Byzantine Empire map yet. Well done! Bigdaddy1204 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  717 again 

message: Now, check this map:
Image:Byzantium1400lightpurple.PNG
You see the mis-spelling of Constantinople, eh?! Can anybody correct it? The issue was also raised during the FAR, but nobody did anything to improve it.
Now about the size of the maps: I like in the articles I write (yes, I do know I am not alone here!) not to put any special size. I put them as they are with no size and then it is up to the reader to click on the picture in order to see a bigger version (so, it is not just a "childish" caprice!). This is the principle I followed during my rewriting here. But, of course, this is not by default the best solution, just because I like it.
So, we have two choices: 1) all maps with no size, 2) all maps (but all of them! And not just those in one or two sections!) with a fixed size (but again will all the maps look having the same size? I am not sure ... ). Which one do we prefer?--Yannismarou 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I don't care what size the maps are, so long as a greater resolution is available and the text and the images fit well. As for the mispelling, me to the rescue! Give me a little time...Tourskin 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tourskin!--Yannismarou 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can anybody correct this map?!

message: According to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style, images should be kept to a consistent size: 
"Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
 
*When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts."[]
Therefore, I propose that the consistent size should be 310px for all the maps (which is what most of them already are in any case). It is important to follow these Wikipedia guidelines for images, if we are to keep Byzantine Empire as a Featured Article. Bigdaddy1204 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to this.Tourskin 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map size

message: The infobox says:
:¹ Establishment date traditionally considered to be the re-founding of Constantinople as a capital of the Roman Empire
Has there been a discussion leading up to this text? What traditions place the starting date of the Byzantine Empire at 330? Certainly, Constantinople was established as a centre of power in the Greek/oriental cultural sphere around 330, but having the Byzantine Empire proper begin at this early date seems very disputable. As the Roman Empire was still undivided at that time, this would mean that it should be called the Byzantine Empire. Now, no historical atlas (to pick one "traditional" source) will call the empire of the 300s "Byzantine". (The case may be different for "Byzantine art", but that is irrelevant, since we are dealing with a political term.) Apart from that, assigning a single year to the genesis of the Byzantine Empire seems rather artificial; as for me, a more cautious phrasing like "established in the course of the fourth century" would be more accurate. In short: [citation needed]. Iblardi 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout we simply write "see intro"? This argument is academic and a solid answer can never be concluded becuase Byzantine is an artificial concept to distinguish one period of the Roman Empire from another, later and very different one. Tourskin 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantinople was "consecrated" in a formal ceremony on 11. May 330, an event which was celebrated thereafter as the "birthday" of the city. One can argue whether it really became a "capital" at this point, or whether it was just another imperial residence, but in the traditional sense the move from Rome to Constantinople has been considered a reasonable starting point for the history of the empire named (after the fact, admittedly) after the latter city. So I see nothing wrong with using this date in principle, as long as we acknoweldge its somewhat artificial basis. --Javits2000 18:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but as it stands the article basically starts with Constantine, with a bit of the tetrarchic background. My opinion is that a) it's nice to have a date in the infobox and b) 330 is as traditional as it gets, as long as the reasons behind the date are explained, which the present footnote accomplishes quite nicely, and is even quite sophisticated ("a" capital instead of "the" capital). If Byzantium is the "Christian Roman Empire," then it starts, roughly, with Constantine; and if it's the "Eastern Roman Empire," likewise. If it's something else (e.g. a massively reduced territorial expanse with entirely different settlement patterns & modified administrative structures, etc.), then it probably starts some time in the 7th century, and the article has to be rewritten. --Javits2000 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We should (a) check out other leading sources, perhaps see what Britannica says, (b) your proposal sounds fair but we can't decide what Byzantium is; the christian eastern state or the reduced defensive greek state, no one has ever said with certainty what it is so again, we should check out what historians around the world generally agree on or an encyclopedia like britannica (which i know is not a historian!!). Otherwise it'll be original. Tourskin 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Britannica gives the following: "The latter term [Byzantine] is derived from the name Byzantium, borne by a colony of ancient Greek foundation on the European side of the Bosporus, midway between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea; the city was, by virtue of its location, a natural transit point between Europe and Asia Minor (Anatolia). Refounded as the “new Rome” by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine. The derivation from Byzantium is suggestive in that it emphasizes a central aspect of Byzantine civilization: the degree to which the empire's administrative and intellectual life found a focus at Constantinople from 330 to 1453, the year of the city's last and unsuccessful defense under the 11th (or 12th) Constantine." I think you'll find most historians adopt a roughly similar span; for example, the first sentence of Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (Oxford, 2006): "Byzantium is the modern name given to the state and society ruled almost continuously from Constantinople (modern Istanbul) from the dedication of the city by the Emperor Constantine in AD 330 until its sack by the Ottomans under the young Mehmed II ('the Conqueror') in 1453. The recent survey by Timothy Gregory, History of Byzantium: 306-1453 (Oxford, 2005), starts with the reign of Constantine. Treadgold (Concise history of Byzantium [2002]) starts with the division of the empire in 285, but says "I avoid calling the empire 'Byzantine' until the fifth century, when Constantinople truly became its political and cultural capital.'" --Javits2000 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest I had seen Byzantium as starting in 330 but the Roman Empire also existed in that point of time. Therefore I guess the best way to think of it is that Rome was not so much succeeded by Byzantium as transformed into Byzantium, so Byzantium was not really established, but instead, her transformation from Roman to Byzantine began in 330 and the transformation was complete by c. 620 AD. Tourskin 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, I think, is that most mainstream sources will not provide any one date as the empire's starting point. If nevertheless we have to choose one specific year to be mentioned in the infobox I would rather choose 395 as the starting date; this seems legitimate, as in that year, with the death of Theodosius I and accession of Honorius and Arcadius, the Empire is permanently split up into two separate political entities. This still doesn't mean that the early history (324-395) should be skipped over, of course. Iblardi 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established: 330 

message: Why was Eastern Roman Empire deleted?--Philip Auguste 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: People, I need everyone's help in resolving an edit war in this article as it cannot be decided whether or not the Fall of Constantinople was a decisive victory for the Ottomans or not - please, go to Fall of Constantinople and resolve it one way or another!!!Tourskin 07:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fall of Constantinople]] 

message: The Primary sources section looks very thin.
I would expect that Psellus, "The" authority for 11th century political history should be included (Chronographia, published by Penguin in English as "Twelve Byzantine Rulers").  Kinnamos for the next century would be a useful addition.
Urselius 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: When Odoacer/Odovacar deposed Romulus Agustulus, he sent the Western imperial regalia to the Eastern Emperor.  There was then a theoretical re-unification of the whole Empire with the fiction that the German rulers in the West were imperial vicars.  This is something that Theodoric at least paid lip service to, indeed many mints in the West continued to coin money with the image and titles of the Eastern emperor (the only emperor) for a considerable time.  Dating in the West, even in post conversion England was in the regnal year of the emperor (Bede tells how Caedwalla of Wessex died in Rome in a regnal year of Justinian II).
Urselius 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? The theoretical re-unification wasn't substantiated by facts or realities. Odoacer also recognized Julius Nepos as "his" emperor and coins were minted in Nepos' name (at least that's what the articles say). But it was an all-too empty ilusion. Odoacer ruled in Italy on his own, and never returned any real power/territories to Nepo. Later also Theodoric ruled on his own (and after his death Justinian sent Belisarius and Narses to conquer Italy). Lip-service is cheap; any cunning ruler will give/use it. Theory and legality solely on their own aren't worth anything at all, if they aren't backed by action and aplication. A law inside a book which is never enforced in practice is worth nothing at all. Flamarande 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of points, firstly even powerful rulers like Theodoric (who was a Roman patrician as well as King of the Ostrogoths - even that arch-barbarian Clovis was a Roman patrician) found it politic to play the fiction of being appointees of the emperor, they did this because it made ruling their Roman subjects much easier.
It also made the reconquests by Justinian entirely legal, he was merely re-asserting rights that had never been fully abrogated, rights that the German kings had, in many instances, never challenged as such.
It was a legal fiction that lasted, and through the intervention of the church was even extended in part to England, until the iconoclast heresy of the Empire loosened its bonds.  It also affected the policy of Charlemagne, his efforts to get Byzantine recognition of his imperial title were not inconsiderable.
Just because rights were seldom or ever enforced physically doesn't make them unimportant.
Urselius 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Look I am a bit of a cynic/realist. Of course did the Germanic invaders care a bit about "Roman" titles and Byzantine recogniztion. Everything that makes it easier to rule is used by the conquerers. You say that "the re-conquests of Justinian were entirely legal". Since when is war (and military conquest) illegal? It certainly wasn't back on those days. Justinian had ambition and a strong army and good generals and a claim, so he used the claim to pursue his ambition. He didn't go to a court of law; he had the oppositon killed. Is that legal? Flamarande 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of the West