Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 2

message: Roydosan and Hectorian, this opening paragraph bullshit is getting tiresome. Why do we have a paragraph like that anyway? It tells us nothing about what the Byzantine Empire actually was. Both versions are useless and uninformative. Adam Bishop 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that pointing out Byzantium's heritage to the Hellenistic world is uninformative; it explains how a "Roman Empire" ends up being called "Greek Empire" and being inhabited by Greeks, but I'm giving up on the head anyway. Roydosan has already made up his mind and is clearly in some sort of denial about this whole thing, and imo there's no more use trying to talk sense into him. He's changed sourced content, he's even removed direct citations and replaced them with his POV. I restored the native name on the head and removed striking OR terms such as "Greek speaking Romans of the Eastern Empire". Finally I'm replacing "Greco-Roman" with "Hellenistic", the term used in the OHB i.e. the source cited right next to the claim. Regards. Miskin 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As Miskin says, the Hellenization from Constantine until it's effective culmination under Heraclius is integral to the Empire, it explains why we draw the distinction. Western Europeans have no right to this History, they have already appropriated Classical Roman History away from the Italians (thanks to their enlightenment bullshitters). We will not let them do the same, we Greeks are a proud and ancient people.
No-one is disputing that the Greeks are a proud and ancient people but an encyclopedia is a place for facts not for nationalist sentiment. Maybe you should read NPOV and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Roydosan 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the mention : "During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks" due to the increasing dominance of its Greek population and distinct culture. " Since this is quite true and expresse the change that came over the empire's long existance. I'l also take this time to support Roydosan's point on Greeks in Alexandria and Antioch. Even to this day both cities hold an important greek minority. As to anonymous... World influencing civilisations are to be cherished and respected by all. Every one as a right to history, one cannot own it, one cannot sell it; it was, it is and will be. Dryzen 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't bringing forward any nationalist sentiments, I was just striving to make this article reflect the scholarly neutrality that some wikipedia articles lack. Roydosan's pan-roman views are unfortunately very poorly supported. Dryzen I never denied the undisputed fact that Alexandria and Antioch were Greek cities, I was just annoyed by Roydosan's use of his own terminology such as "Greek-speaking Romans". Frankly I don't know what he's trying to prove, but that edits is completely out of context and makes no sense with the rest of the paragraph. I think he was trying to imply that Alexandria and the urban centres of the Eastern Roman world were in fact inhabited by Hellenized Romans, something which would ignore all sources on the huge Greek colonisation waves of the Hellenistic age. Either way Roydosan makes edits based on his erroneous POV and imperfect understanding of the region's ancient history. He seems to be under the impression that the term "Hellenistic world" refers strictly to the Greek peninsula, and that all "Greeks" were confined within those borders (in the style of the modern Italian nation). Miskin 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: This, from the fourth paragraph of the'Crisis and fragmentation' section, makes no sense to me: "However, due to treachery from his opponents who deserted him on the field of battle...".  Wouldn't 'deserting him on the field of battle' be a rather chivalrous thing for his opponents to do?  ;-)  Obviously something different is meant but I don't know enough details to fix it correctly myself.  Thank you. -LambaJan 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were his opponents in his own army, who were treacherous, but Romanus didn't know that until they deserted him. Adam Bishop 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing wording

message: I am surprised by how little interest there seems to be in the Byzantine army - such an important article, so closely related to Byzantine Empire. It really needs some work - there are whole sections missing, there is very little about where and against whom the army fought, how effective it was, or any mention of its major battles. I've been doing quite a lot of work on it recently, but it needs more. Please, surely there must be somebody on here who knows or cares about this article, and would be willing to help improve it? It's been 7 months since my last appeal for help, but apart from some contributions by Dryzen, almost nothing has been done by anyone other than myself... Bigdaddy1204 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Byzantine army article needs a lot of work

message: I am not  perfectlyhappy with the references given for Byzantine History.  
The Dr. David Turner reference [Dr. is NOT used in references & is a dead giveaway for self-promotion] links to a webpage with some sort of essay with no citations.  I believe Wikipedia does not accept "original" research.  
Gibbon is a lovely read, but outdated as a reference.  Norwich is unacceptable as a reference: he worked from secondary sources & went purely for sensational stories.  Runciman is mostly outdated.
References I would like to see included are:
Fowden, Darth.  Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of monotheism in late antiquity.  Princeton, 1993.
Kazhdan, A. P. & Ann Wharton Epstein.  Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.  Berkeley, 1985.
Whittow, Mark.  The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025. Berkeley, 1996.
The link to the Dumbarton Oaks Economic History of Byzantium is good & should be played up more prominently, especially as it is a free source.  The link goes to the book for sale, but this link http://doaks.org/EHB.html goes directly to the downloadable book.
Nauplion 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References are in chronological (in the article) order and the numbers refert to the citation numbers found within the artivcle. Alphabetization would disrupt this order. In Bibliography on the other hand, alphabetization is more than welcomed. As for the references themsleves I'll leave that ot the main writers of the article.--Dryzen 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I used the wrong term.  My comments were of course about bibliography.  Nauplion 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely don't want to see this hit Featured Article Review, but the lack of inline citations worries me. If you guys are working on references, try to integrate some. --Zeality 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly do you doubt? Gibbon is outdated; Runciman maybe not as old, but not exactly recent scholarship either; Norwich is pop. All of them would be (and are) used, but replaced by newer scholarship if available. Varana 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I have to agree with the remarks of Nauplion and Varana re: bibliography. There is nothing arrogant about insisting on quality. Some references are better than others, in history as in any other field, and to stick pointlessly to outdated or subpar sources does a disservice both to readers, who deserve an up-to-date introduction to a subject, and to those scholars who have worked to build on the work of earlier generations and advance our knowledge. Calling Gibbon "outdated" is like calling hell "warm." Norwich wrote as an entertainer, not a scholar, and as a result the book is not sourced so as to allow readers access to the relevant primary and secondary literature. Either Ostrogorsky or Treadgold should be preferred, if one must rely on a handbook in the first place. Ditto the remarks above re: Fowden (Garth, BTW, not Darth), Kazhdan & Wharton, and Whittow. There are other glaring omissions -- for example, John Haldon's  Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture (Cambridge, 1997); Cyril Mango's Byzantium: the empire of new Rome (New York, 1980); Mango's edited volume, The Oxford history of Byzantium (Oxford, 2002); and, for the earlier period, the works of Peter Brown and Averil Cameron.  --Javits2000 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REFERENCES 

message: These are the books I used:
*Angold, Michael (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204. Longman. . 
*Haldon, John (2002). Byzantium - A History. Tempus. . 
*Harris, Jonathan (2003). Byzantium and the Crusades. Hambledon and London. . 
*Alan Harvey, "Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire, 900-1200" 
*John Haldon, "The Byzantine Wars" 
*J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army 1081-1180 
*Magdalino, Paul, "The empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180"
*Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium. Penguin. . 
I would like to add inline citations as well; however constraints of time make this difficult. The most I have time for immediately is to place my seven books at the top of the bibliography list, draw attention to them here, and explain that these are the books that I used when I wrote the following sections:
*8 Crisis and fragmentation 
*9 Komnenoi and the crusaders 
*9.1 Alexios I Komnenos 
*9.2 First Crusade 
*9.3 Slow recovery 
*9.4 John's restoration of the empire 
*9.5 Manuel I Komnenos 
*10 The Komnenian army 
*11 Twelfth century 'Renaissance' 
*11.1 Economic expansion 
*11.2 Artistic revival 
*12 Decline and disintegration 
*12.1 Death of Manuel Komnenos 
*12.2 Collapse under the Angeloi 
*12.3 The Fourth Crusade 
*13 Analysis of the collapse 
*13.1 The arrival of the Seljuks 
*13.2 The structure of the military 
*13.3 Conclusion 
as well as parts of 7 - "Golden age", 14 - The fall of the Byzantine Empire, amd 14.1 - Aftermath.
Hopefully by pointing out the sections I wrote and the books I used to write them, this will be of some help. Bigdaddy1204 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The books I used

message: Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone minds if I delete or change this page to Meros?--Dryzen 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moirae (military)]] 

message: My recent edits to this section were reverted. However, this has not changed the fact that the original text is poorly written and is not formal enough. It is simply not good enough to leave it as it is. It must be re-written. Examples:
"the leaders of the Crusade ran in to trouble"
too colloquial;
"after some time spent arguing over what to do next"
same;
"The Crusaders ransacked the wealth of a millennium, stretching back to the days of the Roman Empire."
bad sentence structure; and so on. This section lets the rest of the article down. It is glaringly inferior to the rest of the text. You seem to be missing the point that I'm not just adding more details to this article, but I am re-writing it in a more appropriate style. But every time you revert my edits, you are removing all these improvements to the style of the section and putting it back to its unsatisfactory condition. 
I don't want an edit war over this, but I'm not going to leave the section alone; it simply isn't good enough as it is. 
Now, what I suggest is that I set down the text as I want it to be here, and then you suggest changes and amendments here, and then when we have reached a version we can agree on, we add it to the article. So, here it is:
"The Fourth Crusade
Main article: Fourth Crusade
The Fourth Crusade was the single most catastrophic event in the history of the Byzantine empire. Considered by many to be the low point of the Crusading era, the outcome of the Fourth Crusade was also a supreme irony. The Crusades had originated in a call for aid by the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who had envisaged the use of western soldiers in the defense of the empire. Yet in 1204, the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked the Byzantine capital at Constantinople and dismantled the Byzantine empire.
Although the stated intent of the crusade was to conquer Egypt, the leaders of the Crusade were placed in an extremely difficult position when they found that considerably fewer men had responded to the call for a crusade than had been expected. As a result, they could not afford to pay for the huge Venetian fleet which they had hired to take them to Egypt. The Venetians would not let the crusaders leave without paying the full amount agreed to, originally 85,000 silver marks. The crusaders could only pay some 51,000. After a period of indecision and argument between the Crusade leaders and the increasingly impatient Venetians, the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo made a controversial new proposal - the crusaders could pay their debts by attacking the port of Zara in Dalmatia (essentially an independent community which recognized King Emeric of Hungary as a protector, and which was previously ruled by Venice).
The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. Both the Venetians and the crusaders were immediately excommunicated for this by Pope Innocent III.
In 1202, the Byzantine prince Alexius Angelus, the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelus, offered to reunite the Byzantine church with Rome, pay the crusaders an enormous sum, and join the crusade to Egypt with a large army if the crusaders would sail to Constantinople and topple the reigning emperor. The crusaders accepted; their fleet arrived at Constantinople in late June, 1203.
The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. The citizens of Constantinople turned against emperor Alexius III, who then fled. Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.
Alexius IV realised that his promises were hard to keep, as Alexius III had managed to take a large amount of money with him, and the empire was short on funds. In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked from the crusaders to renew their contract for another six months (until April 1204). Opposition to Alexius IV grew, and one of his courtiers, Alexius Ducas (nicknamed 'Murtzuphlos' because of his thick eyebrows), soon overthrew him and had him strangled to death. Alexius Ducas took the throne himself as Alexius V; Isaac died soon afterwards, probably naturally.
The Catholic clergy meanwhile accused the Byzantines of being traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "the Greeks were worse than the Jews", and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action. Although Innocent III had warned them not to attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared to assault the Byzantine capital.
Eventually, the crusaders took the city on the 13th of April. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were stolen or destroyed. Among the loot were four bronze horses from the Hippodrome. These were taken to Venice, where they remain to this day. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; according to Choniates a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne. When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them, saying "You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".
According to a prearranged treaty, the empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established over the ruins of the Byzantine empire. Byzantine power was permanently weakened. After an initial rise of the power of Bulgaria in the first half of the 13th century, the Serbian Kingdom under the Nemanjic dynasty grew stronger and, with the weakening of Byzantium, formed a Serbian Empire in 1346."
Bigdaddy1204 07:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Crusade

message: This section, while it has recently been helpfully expanded by Attilios and reorganised by myself, needs considerable attention. Comparison with the rest of the article is instructive - the section on the Golden Age needs to go into more detail on the successes of the empire, and needs to go beyond the mere stating of facts to explain and describe the situation and nature of the empire at this time. If we are going to get this section to a point where it is equal in consistency, quality of written English, coverage of the topic, and evalution and analysis, to the rest of the article, then it is going to require major work. I don't much fancy taking this task on by myself - I have already written something in the order of 9,000 words for this article as it is (mostly covering the period 1025 to 1204), and I feel it needs contributors other than myself and Attilios (no offense to those who make smaller edits, by 'contributors' I mean those who write new sections or provide major rewrites of existing ones). Bigdaddy1204 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Attilios writing. I'm not of English motherlanguage, so my edits need to be copyedited by other users. I think the featured status given to this article shows the intrinsecal lacks of current Wikipedia, especially in the history field. There are a lot of in-depth articles devoted to singular arguments (to remain near, Byzantine Army) which are far more informative than those of Britannica; menawhile, articles about generalistic items are reather lacking in details. Byzantine Empire is the typical example. Check the pathetic status of History of Italy or Venice for another, whenever there are tons of bytes spent for stupid TV or porno stars. Returning to the point, the fact that this article is well-written, organized, and has a lot of pages does not imply necessarily it is comparable to that of a good encyclopaedias: this because the field it deals with needs further researching and writing. Let me know and stay connected for other additions from mine in the incoming days (by the way, they're mostly from Ostrogorsky). Last word for Bigdaddy: I think history field is not exactly the one attracting hords of Wikipedia editors. Give a glance to WP:Systemic bias or the stats of the most viewed articles to have an identikit of the mean Wikipedian. As an example, I was the SOLE serious contributor to pages like History of Rome for the entire last year! I also have the impression that, in general cultural terms, Anglo-Saxon (especially the US) are less fan of history than "humanistic" countries like Italy or France, for example. Let me know and good work! --Attilios 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a bit of wiki-history this article attained FA prior to the current required levels of quality. Also prior edit war have led to man yan editor leave the subject alone, including myself. Seeying that possible efforts might be waisted, while I could work on perifial articles to my heart's content. I must also confess my unbalanced knowledge of the Byzantine empire, heavily leanign on the military and administration, and this prior to 1081. As time permits I will gladly lend a hand, though this may be more confined to reviewing and rewriting than raw data.--Dryzen 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Age

message: I added the "said to be 300kg (700pd) gold" from a "Jeapordy!" clue, presumably taken from whatever encyclopedia they use... 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a great source, I'll leave it there for now but would perfer to have some less debateable source.--Dryzen 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldfinger?

message: I don't know anything about making maps (or improving them) for the articles, but it seems to me that some of you are quite adept at it. I quite like the maps recently provided, but I see some small things that might (and should) be improved. Here are my proposals; follow them only if you agree with them and are willing to do it. There might be other valid improvements somebody else might wish to point out; please do so but don't exagerate (i.e.: don't clutter the maps with too much info, keep them rather simple). Flamarande 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the clutter we've already been discussing the point by making multiple type maps for their multiple roles in the article. Type one would show city information as well as a myriade ot ofther important and secondary infromtation, this would be the only map that could characterised ascluttered, although there is no such athing a clutter in  well made map, only information that you haven't found a use for yet. ;o) As soon as I am able to have my Sources' returned I should be posting a few new maps for Bigdaddy1204 to normalise and Varana to intergrate in his already fabulous animation.--Dryzen 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for hte delay. tic-toc-tic-toc, waiting...--Dryzen 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay but I noticed it only today, 29 of Nov. It´s great; all the major cities are there, etc. There is only one mistake here. Namely, the division of the Roman Empire into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (known to us today as Byzantine Empire). That why I wanted exactly this date (death of :Theodosius the Great). Ok, I know that I am pushing my luck here, but could you also include the city of Nicea? As far as I know the city wasn't very important at that time, but it grew in importance into becoming the second city of the empire, and temporary capital of the Byzantine empire (it depends a bit upon ones POV) during the havoc created by the :Fourth Crusade). Flamarande 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map improvements (only reasonable ones please)

message: While the major part of the site deals with the ancient Roman Empire, there is a section on Byzantium under http://roman-empire.net/constant/constant-index.html . Now, the question is: do we need that information in the external links? If yes, we should give the above link on the relevant section, instead of the whole site. I think it would be best to come to a conclusion on that topic some time, instead of constant reverting and re-inserting. Varana 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my humble opinion that the site is quite good, and its information about the Byzantine Empire/Empeoros is valuable. I also agree with your proposal to link directly to the relevant part. Cheers Flamarande 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman-Empire.net is a good source of information, its subsections have a number of valid references for the Byzantine Empire. Sound good on the structuring.--Dryzen 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  roman-empire.net link 

message: It seems that the Armenians are always brought up here in heated discussions so I just wanted to comment on that. There were two kinds of Armenians in the Empire, the Romanoi Chalcedonian fully Hellenized (Kourkouas family for example) ones that may or may not have spoken Armenian and for all we know other than having an Armenian name had no other Armenian attributes at all and the Armenian non-Chalcedonian residents. This article only mentions the non-Chalcedonian minority though. There were also non-Armenian families that were Armenianized by marriage such as the Phocades. The former were a majority the latter were a minority. The former would slaughter the latter without a second thought if given an opportunity and vice versa. The former was loyal to the Empire the latter was not. There were some exceptions after the Battle of Manzikert where certain Hellenized Chalcedonian Armenians (Philaretos Brachamios, Thoros of Edessa, Gabriel of Melitene etc.) lost faith in the Empire and ended up being more Armenian, but those days the Byzantine Empire was already turning into a Greek state. There is a very interesting book dedicated to this subject written by the famous Greek pioneer of Byzantine Studies, Peter Charanis: The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963) Anyway, I would call the Byzantine Empire under the Comnenids, Angelids, Laskarids and Palaiologans an ethnic Greek state.--Eupator 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents about Armenians 

message: There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Byzantium after Byzantium as to what should be done with this article. Some propose merge into Byzantine Empire. Your comments are welcome. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Byzantium after Byzantium]] 

message: I don't know what we're voting for here. Are we voting on making a move, on content of the move in question or on the name of the new article? You people need to make up your minds, for the time being everyone's "support" vote is a reply to some statement made in Talk, and not a support for an actual proposal. The proposal Byzantine identity is out of the question, this is clearly original research and no vote has the right to change WP:POLICY. So stop wasting your time and open up a debate. Bringing up sources is good, but I'm waiting for someone to define a debate before the the procedure begins. So far everyone's been talking about different subjects. Dryzen made a good debate but unfortunately he included his post in a "support" paragraph instead of a separate section. Miskin 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greek here means a member of the Greek Church. Any citizen of Byzantium that was Chalcedonian was Greek.--Eupator 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The vote is off