Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 4

message: In the info box on the right, the official name for the Empire is stated as being Βαυιλέα Ρωμαίων, while the text itself includes the article τών. Furthermore, the English translation is said to be "Roman (Byzantine) Empire", while in my opinion it should be "Empire of (the) Romans" ("the" depending on τών).
And while "Roman Empire" might still be a fitting translation, the term "Byzantine" should not enter the equation at all; it is an entirely anachronistic label (as the article itself repeatedly states) coined by European historians centuries after the fall of Constantinople.
By the way, can anyone tell me how to enter polytonic Greek words here? --MasterLycidas 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in the info box 

message: I've read in some places (not authoritative works) that, although the Western Church and the Frankish court would frequently refer to the Eastern Empire as the "Greek Empire" or the "Empire at Constantinople," it was at least as common in Western Europe to refer to it as "Romania." If this is true it is not true if this was before the emergence of the "Holy Roman Empire" or throughout the Middle Ages. In any event, if this is the case it makes sense to at least mention it.
Also, although I have no specific information, "Romania" is much more of a Latin name than a Greek name (i.e. the Greek name looks borrowed from Latin). My guess is that the name actually arose before the so-called "Byzantine period" began, perhaps in Rome. Anybody know anything about that? If so this seems worthwhile to clarify (i.e. that it was not a name the "Greeks" invented but a name they continued to use).
--Mcorazao 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Byzantine" was indeed sometimes used in the middle ages for the inhabitants of Constantinople, but never so far as I know for the empire as a whole. This at least is the standard account that gets trotted out in the first page of most every survey. --Javits2000 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the name 

message: I suggest for this articles to be split into "Byzanine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", due to the fact that in it`s current state, it  merely reflects the Greek vision on the issue. It is simply unacceptable to have the Latin name of the Empire deleted, both from the lead and from the infobox, and insted have only the Greek one. It is simply unacceptable to have all categories deleted except for the "History_of_Greece" one. The "see also" subchapter is full of redundant Greek content (Greek churhc, Greek patriarch, List of Greek patriarchs, History of Greece, Greek culture, etc) Mursili 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OPPOSE Look, this empire is widely known as the Byzantine Empire. That is not a Greek name at all, in fact it is a French name who happens to have established itself. The Greek state is widely accepted to have the best claim as "cultural inheritor" of the BE. The BE gradually stopped using Latin and focused solely on the Greek language. The Byzantine church and its patriarchs survived the fall of the empire and failing to convert the Turks became a ethnik church focussing upon the Greeks/Byzantines besides continuing to convert other ppl (Russians, Serbians, etc). You are free to improve any article in a serious manner. Flamarande 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I wasn`t clear: this proposal camed after such "attempts to improve the article in a serious manner" , attempts which have hit the Greek POV on the issue. You argued to issues I didn`t addresed Flamarande! Read carefully from "due to the fact that..." and comment on that. Mursili 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I have no idea how that split should be done and what it would achieve. "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, no matter how you treat its relation to the Greek ethnicity (which seems to be what you are concerned about, if I read you correctly). Which of the two articles you propose would deal with what exactly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly! "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, yet the current article looks something like Byzantine Empire = Greece and the Greek people and the Greek culture and the Greek patriarchs, since ever! Forget about Romans, forget about the ascendant Latin, forget about other countries whose categories belong too in the cat. section. Forget about everything except Greece and Greeks : the only category allowed in the cats. section is "History_of_Greece" cat. All other will to be deleted. The only name in the lead is the Greek one. The Latin one shall be removed. The "See also" should contain as much Greek-related link as possible, even though it`s redundant. And so on... I hope you recognise irony, and that I didn`t actually meant for the article to be split. It was just the only solution I could find to settle an old issue Miskin (plus a gang of Greek editors) and I had. Mursili 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the article looks at all like that. The article describes with precision how the Empire evolved, from a Roman Imperial state (early period) to a Greek monarchy (late period) that recognised its domain after the Fourth Crusade as "their Hellenic land". Whether you like it or not, the non-Byzantines did view Byzantium as a corrupted version of ancient Greece (but we don't take that into account in this article). Nobody here forgets about Romans, but I'm not sure if you know the average Greek called himself "rhomaios" and his language "Romaic" at an official level up until the 19th century. I don't know how familiar you are with Byzantine and modern Greek history, but stating how you don't like some things is not enough of a reason to make changes. As far as I'm concerned you're probably not familiar enough with the topic and you find some things strange or POV because they're unknown to you. This is why you must always provide a source in order to either refute the validity of the existing content. Miskin 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not against this practice as long as it's applied on similar articles. Miskin 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cf. Austrian empire, and the categories appended thereto. So far as I know there's no standard practice regulating the format of "empire" entries; no legal argument against being progressive if we agree on it. --Javits2000 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh well, it appears User:Mursili was a sockpuppet of some banned user. I guess now reverting his edits becomes an obligation. Miskin 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: Well, thanks to my stubbed Siege of Antioch (1084), you are gonna have to change the map at 1081 to include the fact that the city remained in Byzantine hands until then. Although having made this request, I confess that I forgot where i found this info!! Well, I think it was at wikipedia, or another internet source. So either the stubbed battle must go, or the map be changed. Tourskin.
:Interesting. Britannica, s.v. Antioch, gives 1084 as well -- although how much of the surrounding territory remained in Byz. hands, I have no idea.--Javits2000 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should investigate the issue. Lateron it (the needed changes of the maps) could be added to the improvement-list above. Eventually someone will improve the maps. Flamarande 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can upload images in the Upload file section found by the link right below the search field in the Toolbox section to the left on the wiki-skin.--Dryzen 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now why is it deleted? Its just the same map as before, except I edited it to add Antioch. What's this about? Why are people simply deleting maps without discussing it first? And people call me hard nosed. Can anyone tell me, without being insulting or personal, why I should not return the map? Tourskin 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antioch 

message: here - since 11 feb. It should have been notified here I think - to be replaced by "former countries" box.  Johnbod 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  byzantine empire infobox is now up for deletion 

message: I clicked on this page since it was today's featured article. Knowing very little about the Byzantine Empire myself, I was distressed to see that the lead was not a summary of the article. If someone reads no more than the lead or stops reading the page before the end, that reader has not yet received the essential information he or she should have. Also, rather than presenting multiple theories regarding the beginning of the empire in the lead, I would think that one would want to be as clear as possible; the rest of the article is the place for equivocation and explanation, in my opinion. Awadewit 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a summary in the lead is indead a challange, one needs simply look at the leads in other long lasting and evolving states to realise that its not a common occurance. A summary would be good yes, but deciding what goes in could take a while. Just the begining of the empire is a point of contention! Including knowledge of passed discussions compromise is a hard acheivement but I'dd be willing to work towards it as time permits with similar editors willing to work out the knots.--Dryzen 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I'm wondering if the predecessor/successor fields aren't getting needlessly cluttered. We're now to understand that the Ostrogothic Kingdom was in some way a predecessor (presumably because of the sixth-century reconquest; but on those grounds we'ld have to include the Vandals & Visigoths as well...); and that the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were successors, even though the former outlasted the Byz. Empire by a mere seven years, and the latter by eight. Here again, if we were to be consistent, and add everyone who ended up with a bit of former Byz. territory over the course of the empire, that list would look much longer still....
In any case none of the three are represented by an icon, with the result that the top of the infobox is just getting filled up with question marks. Would it not be more elegant to limit it to the Romans on the one end, and the Ottomans on the other? --Javits2000 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd move to remove the Ostrogoths, they never preceedded the Byzantines. As to the Successors I can agree to place the remenant territories of Morea and Trebizond. Venice on the other hand, no, although they kept some territory it was generally kept at that, unlike the Ottoman whom assimilated portions of Byzantime culture: Administrative, Engineering and Legal fields to name a few. Of it would be more elegant to keep it to the formula Rome-Byzantine-Ottoman and the greyed flags with question marks aren't very elegent of themselves, but elegance isn't our priority is it?--Dryzen 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: On the map showing Byzantium around 550, the small tip of Northern Africa (around the city of Septem/Ceuta) as well as Italy north of the Po are not included, although both regions were part of the empire at that time. Maybe this could be fixed? Iblardi 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the 1081 map needs to be replaced. Bigdaddy1204 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tell me what the map needs and I will have it ready. Just give a message back cos I don't really check this huge page that often.Tourskin 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's there alright. Looks good. Iblardi 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  550 map 

message: How come the bronze star doesn´t appear on the top-right corner; this artcicle is listed as an FA and to me it looks perfect, I think it is the best wikipedia article ive seen so far... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: After the fall of Constantinople, members of the Palaiologus family continued to claim the title of basileus, and in 1503, in accordance to the will of Andreas Palaiologos, the last Palaiologid pretender, the claims passed         Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Thus, the kings of Spain were the legal successors to the Byzantine Emperors. I think this is an important enough fact to warrant mention in the article.
:No signature, dosen't bode well. I'dd read before that this partucular trade was made more out of a need for money (selling the title) than any major succession. And as said we are left with a rememant line... Still sourced, I see no problem with incorporating this information. --Dryzen 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor to Byzantine Empire 

message: The article was recently moved from "Byzantine Empire" to "Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire," apparently without discussion on this Talk page.  Now, I don't have any particular reason to oppose this name change (And, personally, I actually prefer the title of "Eastern Roman" rather than "Byzantine," since I've always felt its continuation of the Roman Empire, rather than its creation of a new state, is never adequately represented), but aren't we supposed to discuss such changes to the article on the Talk page?  Redirect links need to be changed, the article itself might need to be altered, and there are other results that need to be taken into consideration.  Shouldn't we talk about this? JBK405 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was really surprised there was no discussion about the move. I don't particularly mind the change either, but as JBK405 has said, these things really should be discussed first. People should be given a chance to agree or disagree with an important change like this. Bigdaddy1204 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I too think the page move should have been discussed first.  The current title is rather cumbersome, and as far as I understand the naming conventions, alternate names for something shouldn't be listed in the title of an article.  This article needs to be moved to either Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, and I can see already that at least one double redirect caused by the move wasn't fixed. Robotman1974 13:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just add my "Amen" to this discussion. One or the other, not both. The new name is too unwieldy. Should the article on Bill Clinton be moved to William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton? Yahnatan 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Name Change

message: I've requested that this article be moved back to its original title while a possible new name is being discussed, to fix double redirects and broken links. Robotman1974 13:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Is anyone else having problems seeing the Byzantine Flag? The only time it was up was when the page had been briefly moved. Is it just my CPU? Yahnatan 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag shows up consistantly for me. Any other wikipidians?--Dryzen 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have no problems either. Iblardi 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag problems?

message: Anyone care to give me a hand on the Economic history of Greece page? Add a bit about the Byzantine period if you could.--NeroDrusus 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey all

message: This page is currently 105kb long. As Wikipedia:Article size points out, such a long article "almost certainly should be divided up". As it is a featured article, I'm hesitant to make drastic changes without getting input.
By far the biggest portion of this article is devoted to the history of the empire; perhaps it would be more manageable to relocate most of this information over to a new page, such as History of the Byzantine Empire. The history information on this page could then be collapsed into a single top-level header, with sub-headers (consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing their topics) for each of the time periods that currently occupy a top-level header, from Origin to The Fall of. This would give more breathing room for the article to hold more information on related topics besides history, such as culture, relation to nearby countries, and the information currently under Legacy.
Does the above proposal, to move most of the history content into History of the Byzantine Empire, sound reasonable? Or perhaps only some of the largest sections, such as for each of the two dynasties, and the decline (and aftermath?), should each merely get their own article? --BlackTerror 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very long

message: Does someone have a citation for the assertion that "The Byzantine solidus was the internationally preferred currency for 700 years, only gradually being superseded by Italian currencies (such as the Venetian ducat) after 1204."? I was reading up on the issue (so that I could hopefully cite it) in Peter Spufford's Money and its use in medieval Europe (1988: Cambridge University Press), but Spufford seems to take the opposite view, that Byzantine coin was in no significant way circulating in the West after the Early Middle Ages. The story of Western currency begins with the gradual replacement of the solidus by the triens, the the third part of the solidus. "Solidi ceased to be struck by the Franks, except at Marseilles, and no solidi at all were struck by the Visigoths from the reign of Leovigild (568-86) at the latest. In seventh- and eighth- century Italy too, it was trientes that the Lombard kings struck from their mints in the Po valley and Tuscany." p. 18. Throughout this decline in actual circulation, however, the solidus "remained as a unit of account" and money continued to be "expressed in solidi in codes of law, and in land transactions, but in practice the word 'solidus' had come to mean not one actual gold coin, but a unit of three tremisses or trientes." p. 19. The triens, in turn, begins to decline in favour of the denarius and the penny. p. 22. "When gold coinage finally disappeared outside Italy, western Europe was left with a new system of coinage, based on the silver penny, which was entirely unlike either that which survived in the east, in the Byzantine Empire, or that which existed in the later Roman Empire...The disappearance of the coinage systems of antiquity, like the disappearance of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, took many generations. It was none the less complete." p. 26. "The silver penny, or denier...was, for over five centuries, not merely the characteristic coin of western Europe, but virtually the only coin in use." p. 27. Is this what the article means, when it says that the solidus was the "preferred currency"? I apologize if I'm being unduly assertive, as this isn't my area of expertise. I should hope that Spufford isn't asserting a minority viewpoint, but then, I can never be sure. I hope you'll all be able to clear this up for me, and provide the article with the most authoritative information available! Many thanks for having taken the time to read this paragraph, and good luck in the FAR! Geuiwogbil 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need tofor apologies, if the article couldn't properly explain itself then the problem is in that and not the reader. Thank you for your sources and your dedication to understanding.--Dryzen 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it might be wiser to follow Spufford than Lopez. The Lopez article is a classic, but I seem to recall that it's been largely superseded... although where to find a good discussion of the current understanding is another question. It might be worth trying Michael Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (1985) or Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy (2002). In any case let's leave the question open for now. --Javits2000 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: The following book:
Great Ages of Man : Byzantium
shows a map proving that the Byzantines conquered parts of Sicily and so I made and uploaded a new map into the article showing these post-Basil II conquests. Page 61 of the book if you have it, which being many years old now you probably won't. So let me know what anyone thinks.Tourskin 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to have it actually. :) Part of Sicily was apparently re-conquered by George Maniaces around 1040. Iblardi 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1045 map 

message: I would really appreciate if someone could provide me with a list of the Byzantine provinces from Egypt and Anatolia to the borders of the Sassanid Empire. Please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.Azerbaijani 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Provinces

message: OK,can someone explain which flag/CoA is real/precise or whatever and why.
Black eagle on golden field(used by Patriarchat,AEK,represented on FOTW) or golden eagle on red field(represented on www.heraldica.org)?
Also,can we have explanation of flag(I mean on what it has been based on)?
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eagles have always been used and quite frankly abused by many countries as a sign of strength, unity and power. The Byzantine double-headed eagle has its origins from the Roman Imperial Eagle which signified power honor etc. The Byzantines naturally carried this on. However, the Byzantines decided sometime after the Resurrection of the Empire in the 1260's to make it two headed as a way of showing how Byzantine Imperial Authority looks to the West and to the East. As you can see Constantinople is in the Middle of the Known World. To the East lies well the Easten half of the known world and the west the Western half. Europe to west and Asia to the East. I got that info from the following book:
Great Ages of Man, Byzantium. Its an old Time Life Book. 
As for the different red and gold and black colors, I can only guess thats the taste of the Emperor. The Germans began to use Black and Gold so the Byzantines may have switched to Red and Gold to avoid confusion and distinguish themselves as true Romans. Tourskin 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: According to popular tradition, which may well be later interpretation, the red-golden form was used by the imperial family, while the yellow-black was to be used by subordinate persons, who ranked below the emperor (hence they could use only the black "shadow" of his eagle). What is a fact is that while we have numerous depictions of the golden eagle on red, evidently continuing the earlier Roman practice, there is no pictorial evidence (in the Byzantine sphere of influence) for the black on yellow version. However, we know of similar variations in Serbia and Albania, so the interpretation may well be true. Its use in modern times by various Greek institutions seems to be based on the heraldry of the Holy Roman Empire and the later Russian versions (also influenced by the HRE), which all used black eagles on yellow backgrounds (as Greece never had much experience with heraldry, don't expect much in terms of historical accuracy). The flag with the crosses is also attested in a 14th century Spanish atlas, the "Conoscimento de todos los reinos", so it should be indeed the actual flag of the Empire during the late Palaeologian period. Cplakidas 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag/CoA