Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 1

message: I've been reading some of the comments on this discussion page, and I see that there seems to be demand for more maps to illustrate the long and vary varied history of the Byzantine Empire. The size and shape of the empire changed hugely across the centuries, so I have added two new maps to the article - one showing the empire in 717AD, and one showing it in 1025AD. I hope that together these new maps will be helpful! Bigdaddy1204 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The map "The Byzantine Empire under Basil II, c.1025AD" is inacurrate, it shows Croatian medieval kingdom,  which was independent in 1025, as a part of the Empire. Actually, only the coastal region was sometimes under the rule of the Byzantines since Slavs came to the region.Mor Vilkacis 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this map:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Justinian_Byzanz.pngMor Vilkacis 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Maps

message: Hi. I've been writing about the twelfth century in this article, and have added some new sections on this because I think it is a crucial turning point for the empire. I have been thinking about why empires rise and fall, and how there are diferent ways of looking at the reasons. Although you can say that each leader of the state is responsible for the successes or failures that occur during their reign, I am increasingly coming round to the view that it has more to do with underlying institutions and the way the state itself works. For example, under the Comneni the empire was saved by three very capable rulers, but their success masks underlying problems which resulted in catastrophe after they were gone. I have argued that the theme system was one of the crucial reasons for Byzantine success over the centuries, and that its demise coupled with the reliance on strong government by the emperor meant that the state was no longer healthy. Does anyone agree with me on this issue, or are there alternative explanations that I have not covered?
Bigdaddy1204 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion has a withstanding historical basis. The fall of the empire did not come by independent wrong-doings of some emperors. It was the result of a century-long wrong policies followed by a series of emperors. For example although the Comneni were very capable military and diplomatic leaders, they lacked sensitivity on internal problems aroused within the 12th and 13th century. The rise of the byzantine aristocracy and the subsequent suppression of the weak independent farmers brought a huge decline in the empire's incomes as well as an unjustifyable increase of expenditures related to the luxurious lifestyle of the newly created aristocracy and the royal court. The Byzantine Empire for the first time faced so critical economic problems. The small independent farmers were the lifeblood of the empire providing I/food for the urban population II/gold to the royal coffins III/men to the imperial army and navy and most importantly  - IV/ by inhabiting the eastern extremes of the empire (Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia) they were acting like a live shield to the expansion of the islamic populations. The emperors after Basil the BulgarSlayer were mostly people coming form the very rich aristocracy of Asia Minor (Aggeloi, Dukes) and as a result they defendended the privileges of their class against the poor. At the same historic period the feudarchy invaded the Byzantine Empire, from the west with the land being separated to large family feuds and local rulers (doux), independent from a strong central authority, which was the emperor. Manuel himself is characterised as a knight-emperor according to the western customs. This rulers were not easily controlable and oftenly acted against the wide interests of the empire. They were not paying taxes to the royal coffins and their local blood-sucking policies drove the agricultural production to a nadir. As now the smaller farmers were fallen into a populous class of miserable plebes the army started increasingly to recruit foreign mercenaries and ex-crusaders. These people did not have the pride to defend the empire against the islamic hordes. They only cared about gold, and when gold run out the empire fallen. It was the first time that the empire had to rely on foreign mercenaries and not on locally recruited tactical army. Byzantine infantry the most basic tactical group of the byzantine army was a projection of the roman legions of the early republican years (2nd and 1st century BC). Their capacity based on their pride and faith had been proven numerous times in the past. After the 12th century the byzantine infantry became a second tier tactical group not properly equipped and comprised of miserable prideless plebes.I hope these factors mentioned here answer some of your questions to a certain extend.
Regards Astavrou 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Underlying Reasons for Decline

message: Wtf! The following argument about naming of the empire is one of the most meaningless arguments ever. It seems to me that first, there existed the Roman Empire. Then it was divided into Western and Eastern Roman Empire. In this article, we are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire. In current English, this is referred to as the Byzantine Empire. I see no point in having massive discussions about whether to call it Roman (byzantine) Empire or not (except for the comedy-value :)). As long as it is made clear both here and in the Roman Empire article that the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are one and the same thing, what is the problem? Bigdaddy1204 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "cursed" name of this article

message: Erm...people, Mr. Bishop removed the speculation about the Yarmuk thing in early history.  Well, all right, I suppose that information does not belong in a that part of the article.  Perhaps I should move it to the Battle of Yarmuk page?
:Well I suppose it would be more appropriate there...but I don't think it belongs anywhere. You have no idea what would have happened if Yarmuk turned out differently. It's not our job to propose alternate realities on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yarmuk

message: I suggest adding something about the Empress Irene and the Carolingians.  Also --and I say this in all seriousness -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FEUDAL?  Just wondering, since this term is misused so frequently and context changes according to time and place...
JHK
:Empress Irene and her incapability drove the Empire to very bad and almost catastrophic external and internal situations. She tried to face the economic and defensive problems that she created by subjecting the Roman Empire to western feuds and the Papacy. To my humble opinion her marriage with Charlemagne would never be approved internally and it would led to a civil war. Most probably Irene would have been excommunicated by the Patriarch and she would left the imperial court. As for Charlemagne this was the only way to assert a legitimate grasp over his imperial ambitions. Astavrou 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Empress Irene

message: Minor question: Were Khazars really overhelming most of Balkany? I always thought that far more important were Slavic invasion which overhelmed most of Blakany, and nevr heard about Khazars doing 
that.. Any eason why Khazars and Lombards are mentioned and Slavic invasion is not? User:szopen
----
Again, i don't know much about Byzantine Empire, but i've never ever heard about Khazars conquering whole Balkans, instead i know quite a few stories about Slavic tribes overhelming whole Balkans, Bulgars etc. In Kazars entry there is nothing about that (and that would be important fact). So is this just simple mistake, and i cuol dcorrect it, or there was such a great invasion of Khazars which ended with all Balkans being in their posession? szopen
----
Ok, i asked two times, wait a long time, so i changed Khazars to Slavs. I don't know anything about Khazars overhelming whole Balkans. But i know that Slavs invaded Byzantine empire and _they_ conquered whoel Balkans. So i guess someone just made a mistake, so i corrected it. szopen
----
I'm the person who mentioned them originally, and unfortunately haven't been here for a while, which is why I didn't respond.  The Slavs never really conquered much of the Balkans, except in association with other invading peoples, most notably the Khazars but also the Avars and Bulgars (who were not Slavic until they were assimilated later).  I'm not sure if the difference is important enough to revert the page, though. --User:Josh Grosse
----
Well, yes, they do. They many times sieged Thesalloniki. 
The fact was, Slavs were farmers and never organised large staes and large conquest, and they were allies of other people. Bulgars conquered Slavs which were already in Bulgaria.
Interesting to know about Khazars, though. I know about Avars (word Avar, i heard, gave origin to word "olbrzym" meaning big, huge man) but i never, in any historic book i had read, had heard about Khazars cooperating with Slavs. I always thought they were limited to northern steppes.  szopen
Does not the text as it stands give insufficient weight to the fact that Latin remained the official language of the administration until the time of Heraclius? djnjwd
*The inscriptions on their coins were all in Latin until the end of Heraclius / beginning of Constans II, when they switched to Greek. Not sure if that is good evidence or not. M123 20:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Khazars

message: Just a note on romanization of Greek:  There is a tendency to use quasi-Latin romanization of Greek names and words in the Western tradition.  This is somewhat defensible up to the Hellenistic Era, as there is evidence that ancient Greek was pronounced rather differently than modern Greek (although the resulting pronunciations do sound rather ugly...).  For the Byzantine era, the evidence is that the pronunciation then current is more like modern than ancient Greek, and so a modern system of romanization is very much in order.  Good examples are the titles of the emperor:  aftokrátor (autocrator in quasi-Latin) and vasiléfs (basileus).  (If you're looking for evidence that β was pronounced [v] and not [b], just look at the Cyrillic alphabet, which dates from the mid-Byzantine era:  the letter в, borrowed directly from Greek, represents [v], and a new letter (б) was invented for the [b] sound.) Anyway, an article on Greek history should represent Greek terminology and names in a less Latinocentric manner.  I'm not going to mess with the names of the vasileîs for now, but they too should really not be Latinized after a certain point. —Tkinias 09:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum:  It looks like the sound changes occurred earlier than I had realized, so that New Testament–era Greek is pronounced more like modern than ancient Greek . —Tkinias 10:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: That's why I didn't embark on a wholesale moving of emperors to the Greek spellings! ;)  The only things I altered (unless I got carried away somewhere...) were where Greek words or names were directly cited—for example, the quasi-Latin Constantinoupolis or basileus.  It would be useful, of course, to give the Greek and romanized-Greek versions of names on the appropriate pages, but I'm not going to campaign to get everything moved to romanized Greek spellings for the emperors' names, when the Latinized ones are established in usage.  (I'm busy trying to fix really screwed up Arabic romanization at the moment anyway...)  Hell, it's not like we get the Latin Romans' names right in English, either...  In short, I'd just like to see mediaeval Greek accurately romanized, while remaining within the Wikipedia convention of filing things under English versions of names. —Tkinias 10:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree that semantic digressions are inappropriate in this article. I did not add them; I merely corrected the romanization of Greek terms or names which were introduced into the article by other contributers.  Not mentioning the Greek name of Constantinople, or the Greek title of the emperor, is one thing; mentioning them and inaccurately romanizing them is another.  An analogy would be:  If an article consistently writes Munich in reference to the Bavarian city, that would be normal (and, according to Wikipedia policy, correct) English usage; if the article notes that the name in German is Munshen, it would be appropriate to correct that to München. —Tkinias 11:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek

message: An anonymous user (212.113.164.98) is changing references to the Byzantine Empire to read Eastern Roman. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't know enough about the topic to know if it is valid.  -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been, and I think they have all been reverted now...I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but we have been using "Byzantine" here rather than "East Roman." Adam Bishop 05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The map provided is not good enough. I don't think it is representative of the true breadth of the Byzantines. The map, taken as a snapshot in 1265, was when the empire was in steep decline. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 also quite literally ripped the guts out of the empire. So a map when the empire was in steep decline, and at its most vulnerable as it tried to reclaim lost land, is inappropriate. I will try to find a better map, but I think people should be aware of this. It is the equivalent of using a map of modern day Britain, and as the sole picture, implying that is what the British Empire was like at its peak. Biz 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a link for people to get a better understanding about the size of the empire. These maps compare the Roman empire, Byzantine empire and several empires on a map of Europe. Most importantly, it shows the Byzantine empire at 1204 - its low point - and 564, when it was at its peak. The  site also has other maps and information which will help newbies with the subject., Biz 12:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is that we need to find a map in the public domain, or a map that is not copyrighted. There are plenty of good maps on the Internet but we can't use most of them. Adam Bishop 17:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I've done some Byzantine maps for the Finnish WP. See :fi:Bysantin valtakunta. I've been meaning to translate all the names to "english", but I've been too busy. :) -- Jniemenmaa 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that was my fault, I fixed it now - I forgot to set the width of the new table row I added. Adam Bishop 00:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I'm sorry if I have offended you by editing the article but the picture promoted of Byzantium as a cultural amalgamation by Runciman and his followers falls short of the truth. More recent scholarship has proved that even in its early centuries Byzantium was more Greek than previously believed, rendering older works outdated. The simple fact that even before the fall of Rome "Roman" had already began to mean "Greek" demonstrates the marginalization of foreign societies (which shouldnt be a suprise given that even in the pre-Diocletian empire some lands were favored over others despite their equality in law). See for example Warren Treadgold (History of the Byzantine State and Society, 1997, pg.136): "By that time [fall of Rome] most easterners had come to think themselves as Christians, and more than ever before had some idea that they were Romans. Although they may not have liked their government any more than before, the Greeks among them could no longer consider it foreign, run by Latins from Italy. The word Greek itself had already began to mean a pagan rather than a person of Greek race or culture. Instead the usual word for an eastern Greek had begun to be Roman, which we modern render as Byzantine".
Treadgold deliberately distincts Greeks from the rest of the population precicely because of their elevated position in the empire, in order to explain their subsequent dominance in it. The fact that the Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship to all races does not mean it provided for the development of a pluralist society, which was defined by the aggregate of national traits. That would amount to partiallity because the influence of Greeks was disproportionaly greater than that of other peoples ever since the beginning, and would also be unfair to the persistance of national identities alongside Byzantinism within the territories, such as those of the Armenians.
Which is why I think Byzantium's identity depends more on its fluid society than on the territories it encompassed, as you suggest. 
The fact that Armenians resided within the Byzantine Empire does not erase their own existing national identity, which is also true for the Armenians that resided outside the empire (the so called armenian buffer state). To quote Armenian area specialist Nina G. Garsoian (The Problem of Armenian Integration in the Byzantine Empire, 1998, pg.54):As early as the reign of Diocletian, the ancient cis-Euphratine kingdom of Armenia Minor emerged from Cappadocia to become a seperate province which was split under Theodocius I into Armenia I and Armenia II... Subsequent evidence that the region remained demographicaly and culturaly Armenian is provided by the complaints of the bishops of Armenia II, in their answer to the Encyclical of emperor Leo in 458, that they were living among barbarians. One century later, the great administrative reform of Justinian in 536, which created four Armenias, including the two former provinces of that name together with portions of the trans-Euphratine kingdom of Greater Armenia and Pontus, indicates that the imperial authorities still regarded the regions as primarily Armenian." There is a plethora of medieval sources that distinct between Romans and Armenians, indicating and verifying that the Armenians never truly integrated into Byzantium and maintained their own national consience, which is why they were never anything more than an ethnic minority and alien to Roman nationality.
It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in.
This was the basis of Fallmerayer's theory of the bastardization of the modern Greek nation, whose blood supposedly was permanently lossed after centuries of repeated Slavic settlements. His theory though has long been rejected and his claims refuted. Slavic conquests into Greece proper were temporary and whatever population movement came with them eventually returned to north of Macedonia where it remained ever since. The few Slavic settlers that did remain behind were either assimilated by Greeks or marginilized into extinction since no medieval source indicates the presence of large slavic population among Greeks.
Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians?
The Bulgarians held an even lower position than the Armenians. They were organized into ducates, not themes, which means they were recognized as a non-Roman people who were not granted citizenship, did not participate in the army, were exluded from the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and served primarily to protect the Greek speaking territories south of them. The position of Venice parallels this. As part of the empire in the 10th century, just like Bulgaria, she served more as an ally.
What about the Isaurian mountain folk?
The Isaurians were considered barbarians or at least Romans of barbaric origins that lived well into the empire. Zeno the Isaurian was forced to change his name into Greek and a great deal of his pains during his reign were due to his Isaurian origins.
What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? 
Religious heresies were always present, and Bogomilism in particular originated from Bulgaria so there is little to say about Byzantium.
What about the predecessors of the Albanians?
Albanians were were one of the smallest non-Greek populations in the empire. What about them?
Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed?
Because I think that the fact Armenians rose to high administrational positions does not reflect the prevailing Byzantine concept of a Roman that was defined in spite of those minorities. The army was always the chief integrational mechanism, and all Armenians that entered government achieved it through the army, but that still doesnt take into account that Armenians maintained their own seperate national conscience, that remained alive even after they were left outside the empire.
Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert.
Why not? The Byzantines themselves were aware of their Greek-Roman ancestry and so were the neighbours of Byzantium, even prior to the the battle of Manzikert.
****
Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks for your detailed answer. I do not dispute that a Greek Orthodox elite and a Greek Orthodox culture were dominant throughout the empire. My only remaining question would be whether "most" of the people in the giant Balkan and Anatolian territories of the Middle Empire (before Manzikert) actually regarded themselves as Greeks. Your grasp of recent scholarship on this point is impressive and I am inclined to defer to you. Might I suggest you add a sentence or two to the article about why the Seljuks were able to take over and Islamicize eastern and central Anatolia with so little apparent resistance from the local population -- and why the imperial state didn't exert itself more strongly to recover what some modern scholars have depicted as the Empire's heartland. This is something that's always puzzled me. Its like the big elephant in the middle of the living room in the accounts (admittedly outdated) of Byzantine history that I have read. Had environmental degradation already partly depopulated this region, or what?
:They did attempt to take back Anatolia, when they had a big enough army to do so, and they gradually took a lot of it back in the 12th century. Myriokephalon was more of a disaster than Manzikert in this sense - they never got eastern Anatolia back at all after that battle. By the way, you guys might want to sign your names here, even if you don't have a user name (just type ~~~~), it makes it easier to follow a discussion. Adam Bishop 00:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: Bogus anachronism. Not to waste words. --Wetman 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole table is pretty anachronistic. Adam Bishop 11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That motto! --Wetman 13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I've created an image in JPG format of a depiction of the flag of the Palaeologian emperors I came across in a heraldry book a few years ago. This design, in turn, was actually from taken from the Conoscimiento de todos los Reinos, a major source of information on the flags of the fourteenth century. It is described as having combined the George Cross (red cross on white field) and the Arms/Flag of the Palaeologus Dynasty (gold cross with four gold fire steles - Πυρεκβόλα - on a red field). The steles represented the letter "B" (beta) in Greek, and formed the initials of the Paleologian motto - Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων - "King of Kings, ruling over Kings". Dragases 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a very likely possibility (The loss of the original cross name after the fall of the empire) Malta is also know to sport the George cross, but I must confess my mediocre level of knowledge on the George Cross and its symbolism.Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elsewhere on Wikipedia it is claimed that England borrowed the St. George cross from the Knights Templar (I challenged this but nobody listens...) Adam Bishop 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'dd be honoued to take up task. I'm comfortable in the vernacular and an avid artist. Do you think if would be preferable to have these done in digital format (i.e. with a computer assisted design) or to have them hand drawn? How big is the list? You could either send it to me via e-mail or on my user page. We could also set up a page on the nobility and keep the information in comment format <! -- -->.Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted the list on your user page - there are about 25+ families. Digital would be the preferable format (SVG, AI, EPS). I may be able to get a hold of some shield templates in vector format for you. Dragases 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll begin in a square flag template, from there is canbe modified to fit in a shield or crest. Once they are done I'll post link here, unless we deign it reasonnable to start up an article on the blazons. I have a few emblems used by the thematic troops, I'll see about posting them also.Dryzen 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are the versions, are they the three you recently posted?Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SVG files are now appearing correctly. Dragases 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Some links as a starting point. Dragases 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Dryzen 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Flag of the Byzantine Empire"

message: What happened to all the maps?
:Nothing...I still see them... Adam Bishop 05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see them as well.  That said, it seems to me we should have some maps covering the appearance of the empire between 565 and 1180...one in the early 8th century, showing the effects of the Arab, Slavic, and Lombard incursions, and one in the early 11th century, showing the recovery under the Macedonian Empire, would be good.  One showing the restored empire of the Palæologi at its height would be nice, too. john k 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: The Byzantine page has recently been changed from a redirect (to here) to a disambig. The only alternate meaning given other than the Empire is the adjectival (convoluted, perversely complex). This latter sense is also covered in the article here (section #8) - so, for the sake of avoiding minor annoyance of multiple hops, are there any objections if this is changed back to a redirect? --cjllw | TALK 01:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the meaning of the word "byzantine" is not encyclopedic.  It should stay a redirect. john k 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, change it back. It also helps to have it as a redirect when I am too lazy to type Byzantine :) Adam Bishop 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine disambig page 

message: Transfered last paragraph of the article to a page of its own (see:Derogatory use of Byzantine) as it didnt quite fit to the subject of the Byzantine Empire. I also added a link for it in the Byzantine disambiguation page. I think its more appropriate this way. What do contributors think? Colossus 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that really require a separate article? If you're going to make "Byzantine" into a page on it's own, why not discuss the uses of the term there? Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, but it doesn't need to be a disambiguation page, does it? That page could be about the word "Byzantine" and its usage. Adam Bishop 23:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derogatory use of Byzantine 

message: Just a comment on the question of nationality in Byzantium and the middle ages in general, in face of the recent edits in the article questioning the existence of such a concept. A distinction needs to be drawn between the nation-state and nationality in itself. The rise of the nation-state is connected with the universal adherence of the right of nations to self-determination, from which the French Revolution was born. Nationality, on a scale of millions, came out of the middle ages. Antiquity also witnessed similar movements, but only on small numbers (the ancient Greek city states for example all qualified as nations). In the case of the Byzantines, there are numerous testimonies that verify the concept of Greek nationality was well established among them, as it undoubtebly did for its western counterparts of France, England, Germany, even Italy. The official name of medieval Germany was Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. In fact, the war of names with Byzantium after Charlemagne's crowning as "Imperator Romanorum", over the matter of rights of Roman heritage, was a contest of ownership between rival nations. Colossus 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn't that only apply to the Palaeologus period of the empire, when it was relatively small and only had Greeks living in it anyway? Certainly the previous 800 years cannot fit into this arrangement. Yes, the empire is essentially Greek in language, culture, religion, etc, for its entire history, but this is not a "state of the Greek nation". Whatever that even means. Note also that the Holy Roman Empire was not always called "of the German nation", as even our own article about it states. Adam Bishop 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on. It is not incorrect to refer to its later phase as a Greek empire, but claiming that it was not a multi-ethnic empire through much of its history is bizarre. And note also: many of those "Greeks" were in fact Hellenized peoples of originally non-Hellenic ethnicity: South Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, and so on and so forth, though since they later became Greeks, one can't use them to claim a multi-ethnic empire (the various ethnicities became absorbed into the Greek ethnos). Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. Decius 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Westerners calling it the "Greek Empire" was also something of an insult - rather than acknowledge their Roman heritage, which of course was also claimed by the HRE. Adam Bishop 03:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there were others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium and spoke Greek in addition to their own languages, and "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity throughout its history. Byzantine nationality was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?--Theathenae 10:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise of nationalism 

message: User:AlexR, why dont you discuss with us you reservations about NPOV and perhaps we can resolve them here, instead of putting a clean up tag in the main article waiting for a Byzantologist to notice it. Colossus 18:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: The Names of the Greeks article on the bottom of the History of Greece template became a Featured Article Candidate. Come vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Colossus 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Names of the Greeks]] 

message: I changed the conclusion to something a bit more dramatic. I just want to qualify one of my statements that the Byzantine Empire has laid the foundations of western civilisation as we know it.
* preserved ancient knowledge
* was the empire that introduced christianity to Europe
* Justinian's revamped law code of old Roman law, is the basis of most of modern Europes codified law
* was the barrier between Europe and the Middle East - keeping the Muslim empires for over running Europe
* had a central role to play in the Crusades, of whose affect on the world are too numerous to list
* was the cultural, economic and political superpower for the middle ages
Biz 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluding remarks 

message: To please everybody's concerns? I always see a lot of angry Italians on these boards demanding the name be changed to 'Roman', I agree with them, ironically enough - As the article states, Latins had lost their Romanic Heritage with the Norman and other preceeding Invasions. Call it The Roman Empire, or ERE, but it still doesn't change Historical Fact, the Empire wasn't Latin, so it certainly wasn't Roman in the 'Traditional' sense that most think of, thats why we refer to the inhabitants (Greeks) as Byzantines, because there was such a sea change in every aspect of The Empire, right up to the dominant population. This NPOV is so pathetic, anyone can use it as an excuse for editing, granted, I haven't read as much as some of the more knowledgable people on these forums, but thats because I am 16 years old, but from what I have read - The Empire wasn't just dominantly Greek, it was Greek full stop. Should we also give equal coverage to Global Warming denialists just because it happens to be an opinion (disregarding the fact 99% of all climatologists consider their claims totally erroneus). Lets get one thing straight, the Empire wasn't Latin, it wasn't Albanian, it wasn't Armenian, it was Greek, lets just put down Historical fact ffs! Instead of pandering to everyones demands to always attribute someone elses history to their own. Same with the Alexander question, I haven't seen one god damn person mention that the first slavs to enter The Balkans came in 555AD, which makes their claim upon Alexander utterly fradulent, no.... we've got to *give* them equal coverage as if their claims are backed up by ANY kind of Historical fact. Actually, if that's the case, why doesn't somebody go and devote half of the Holocaust page to revisionist theories? We all know *that* wouldn't happen, but it's perfectly alright for others to attribute Greek History as their own, angry Italians, Albanians and even Bulgarians!
: I share your concerns, and agree, especially given my Greek backgroud and this naturally affects my pride (and hence bias). However, understand something: history is politics. And modern politicians use the past to achieve ends in the present and future, so that is why we need to tred a difficult line.
: I have done a lot of reading on the empire - in fact I just read Norwich's condensed history of the entire period - and I was surprised to then read this Wikipedia article on how it was a Greek state. Never heard that perspective, and I think there is an element of truth about it, but I don't agree with it. Why? Because the definition of empire, at least in my eyes, is the conquering of foreign cultures. By that definition, the Byzantines were an empire because they ruled parts of Latin Italy, regions that are now serbia, the Bulgars, and the Egyptians. Sure, they spoke Greek - but language is only one aspect of identity. Modern Greeks today, would consider Greek language, and christianity (especially Orthodoxy) as what constitutes someone being "Greek". But that is now. Back then, they considered themselves Romans. They called themselves Roman. They never called themselves Byzantine. So the problem is, trying to balance our modern day perspective, with their own perspective, to get the closest we can to the truth. But we never will get the truth, and that is why history is so great - because it is a reflection of times when people wrote, and those views reflect what our descndants will consider of us when one day, we are history as well. Biz 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do you go to such great lengths?

message: The page has some great images, but they need a better layout as they make the page look cluttered. I also think we should remove the image "The Byzantine Empire in 1265 (William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, 1911)" because it is duplicate information from another map. The other map is consistent with other pictures, hence providing better comparison. And the map is a little hard to read, and needs to be zoomed in to understand it. As the picture exists on many other Wikipedia articles, I think it will do no harm to remove it. Anyone agree? Biz 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "Standardization of the term did not occur until the 17th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu..." Montesquieu is an 18th-century author. Was the term standardized by a previous writer, in the 17th century? I'm not competent to fix this myself. --Wetman 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably meant to read 18th century. --Tokle 19:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The word stems from the old greek city of Byzantium, which Constantine the Great refounded as Constantinople (Nova Roma). --Tokle 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Term "Byzantine"

message: I have the Britannica and its article about the Byzantine Empire i hugely superior that our on Wikipedia. I'm trying to improve as possible using Ostrogorsky, Norwich and a German book. I have arrived at Justinian era but the work is hard, especially 'cause at the same time I'm writing the History of Rome. Nobody eager to collaborate? Nobody could use the infos in the Interwiki articles cited above. Anyway, for I'm Italian motherlanguage, if you can keep waching this article to correct my grammar errors. user:Attilios, from Late October.
:It depends. What is it about this article that strikes to you so badly? Please be specific before making large edits. Miskin 13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the article: a project?

message: Can some one here say exactly what was the languiage being spoken by the Macedonian dynasty during the byzantine empire, thankyou
:It was Greek - there was never a slavic language that was used in the business of the empire from what I understand. Norfolk says the founder of the dynasty was Armenian, although there is contention on this point. This pro-Macedonian website *http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/RomanMacedonia/MacedonianDynasty.htm) says he may be a mixture of slavic and armenian. However also take this website with a grain of salt - it is a little nationalistic, and in some cases, inaccurate (from my perspective on history)Biz 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language and ethnic orgins of MACEDONIAN DYNASTY 

message: What exactly nationalitys was in the balkans in the middle ages, specially in south balkans, any one have statistiks for this thanks user:Intranetman
: Byzantium never really maintained its hold on most of Balkan territory, not even in its early centuries after the Fall of Rome until Basileus Heraclius. Byzantine lands were limited to Greek speaking territories such as Greece proper and Asia Minor, and so whatever form of nationalism developed reflected that demography. The "Identity" section of the article deals with that. A pan-Balkanic ethnic cartography would be inapropriate as other political entities also developed alongside Byzantium. Colossus 17:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say can only be partly accepled. The limes danubianus survived quite well till the death of Justinian (565), and started crumbling only after, WITHOUT the exception of Heraclius. And it cannot be forgotten that the Balkans were once again unified in 1018 and remained so till 1186, and that Greece was hardly a part of the Empire in much of the 7th and 8th century, as Ostrogrorsky remembers Aldux 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity of the Population of the Balkans in the middle ages 

message: I'm assuming the infobox was what was being discussed in the above "Flag of the Byzantine Empire" section above.  It was added back to this page, and I reverted it.  A template isn't really such a bad idea (although the article already has the timeline infobox at the top) but this one needed some work.  The problem, as I see it, is it's just too difficult to fill in the "Area", "Population" fields (since it varied greatly over the 1000 year history), "Establishment", "First Emperor" fields (since there is no real dividing line between the "Byzantine" and "Roman" Empires).  And to put Preceding State as Roman Empire is sort of misleading as well.  Plus, there is already plenty of maps on this page.  --JW1805 (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hi, I made this "Template: Byzantine Empire timeline infobox" in order to improve the Byzantine Empire article. 
I (personal opinion , but I hope that you agree) do think that the infobox being wholly "inside" of the article only confused and scared (it scarred me) ppl away from any antempt to improve it (and to improve the articles is what Wikipedia is all about). 
It also seems to be a "official policy" in the making of articles.
It also simply "simplifies" things. 
It also ocuppied a lot of space, and the article for itself is "too big" already. Perhaps somebody can merge some things of the Template:Byzantine Empire infobox, if only the "undisputed stuff".
easier , simpler , better
If you don´t agree (but try it out, before judging, I beg you) simply revert it.Flamarande 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, and the code is certainly much cleaner. Nice work! Tom Harrison (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the code definitely looks much cleaner, and it should be less "scary" and much easier for new users to edit. Good job! Squalla 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine Empire timeline infobox 

message: The current title of this article (Byzantine Empire) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy history with a small section on other areas under 'Legacy and importance' heading. At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Indo-Greek Kingdom, with country-like formatting). Alternative is to rename this series to History of Byzantine Empire to be in order with our naming standards (FAs: History of Poland (1945–1989), History of post-Soviet Russia, History of the Netherlands, History of Russia, History of Scotland) and non-history parts can be moved to Byzantine Empire (consider also an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). One way or another, this needs to decide what it is and adapt, as currently it is a confusing hybrid of history and former state article types. If no changes are made, I am afraid it should be deFAced, as it is substandard comapred to our newer FAs (mentioned above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree separating to "History of" is the right route .. but if that is done, does there have to be a re-vote for FA, since the history is the majority of the article? --Stbalbach 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once this problem is addressed (assuming it is done fairly soon), then we can 'reconfirm' it at Wikipedia:Featured article review. Although another vote (one one or both resulting articles) could do nothing but give us more constructive criticism and further improve the article(s), IMHO. And looking at the article, I think that it may take a while before this can be improved to the level of PLCommonwealth or IGEmpire as a 'former state' type article. I'd recommend moving history to 'history of...' article, FAC it, updating the 'Byzantine Empire', and either FARing it or FACing it if FARC comes to force. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope it won't be. But ATM it would not pass the FA process, and unless that changes, it will have to go. Again, I hope we can improve it (one way or another) so it is not necessary, but currently, as an overview of the former state (as the name implies) this article fails (it is not comprehensive). Culture and politics (and history) are not enough: what about economy, territory, military...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam, have you looked at the examples above? There is a difference between Country X and history of Country X. Even if we are talking about a historical country, that doesn't change the fact that those are separate topics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Adam, though Piotr's argument may be useful in highlighting areas which need to be better covered in these articles. Markyour words 17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I see some good progress - keep up the good job! The section on geography and administrative division is still missing, and our goal should be to have those sections rival history in lenght.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite, move or de-FA

message: I've just placed the article on Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (reigned 1143-1180) on the Peer Review page (Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel I Comnenus/archive1). Any comments or suggestions for improvements to this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manuel Comnenus: Wikipedia Peer Review

message: There's material on these pages that may be of interest to some here, and maybe they could benefit from some inter-linking. Mehmed II has been extensively edited lately, and I'd appreciate others' views. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fall of Constantinople]], [[Mehmed II]], [[Loukas Notaras]] 

message: I've been thinking about how to explain the collapse of the empire. I wanted to compare the low point of the empire in 717AD, from which it recovered, with the low point in 1081AD, from which it did not. A brief experiment reveals that the modern day population of the area controlled by the empire in 1081 is roughly 35 million people, whereas the population of the area controlled in 717AD is about 65 million people. Assuming that population levels in these areas have stayed roughly the same relative to each other since the middle ages, surely this reveals that the empire was significantly stronger in 717AD than in 1081AD. Logically therefore, this explains why the empire was able to recover after 717AD, but not after 1081AD. I would be very grateful for other people's comments and views on this idea, perhaps with a view to somehow including it in the section on 'Reasons for the collapse of the Byzantine Empire'. Bigdaddy1204 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse of the Byzantine Empire

message: There is some discussion at Talk:Roman and Byzantine Greece about merging that page into Roman Greece and Byzantine Empire, if anyone has thoughts. Tom Harrison Talk 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Greece 

message: Someone has been changing the spellings of words in the sections I wrote for the 'Golden era', 'Collapse into Anarchy', 'The Comneni and the Crusaders', and 'Twelfth century prosperity, art & culture'. I wrote the sections in British English; they were changed to U.S. English. I strongly object to this arbitrary cultural imperialism. I do not change articles written by U.S. English speakers to British English, and I am angry that someone should force their national preferences on others. Have some respect, and leave other's work alone. Bigdaddy1204 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Death to the imperial American dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously) Flamarande 15:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at his user page, the editor who made the changes may be Canadian. I agree that the spellings ought not to have been changed. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, Then I will change my battle-cry: Death to the imperial Canadian dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously) Flamarande 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I always use proper spellings...although if this person is a fellow Canadian, then this is the second example I've seen of Canadians changing articles to American spellings. Maybe they don't teach Canadian spelling anymore... Adam Bishop 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats strange, British english (Commonwealth) is the prevailing and official english dialect. Of course the foremost spell checks are made via Microsoft Word, this editor may have unlearnt his english to conform to an American english default setting. "On to the march!"Dryzen 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American Cultural Imperialism

message: I am impressed that the editors of this article managed to improve it so significantly in the weeks since my critique. While there is still some material to be added or balanced, I think that the article is rather comprehensive now. The main issue that differentiates it from our current FA-level articles is the lack of Wikipedia:Inline citations. Therefore I'd ask the editors to start including them in the article. I'd love to help but I am currently busy doing the same (including inline cits) in my old FA of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for inline citations

message: This is a remarkable article indeed! 
I can imagine it is absolutely difficult, like walking on the edge of a knife, to write an article on a subject of such importance, which is neutral enough to satisfy most of the readers!
I only have one objection, and it is about the mentioning of FYROM, with its present-day name, in a historical article like this one... I think that when we speak about Byzantium, which is part of a certain historical period, we should use terms that refer to THAT period, and not terms created later. Well, yes, Orthodox Christianity spread to FYROM as well, it also did to Albania and Bosnia (the latter two later became predominantly non-Orthodox), but FYROM, just as Ukraine and (SOMEBODY FORGOT!) Belarus, didn't exist at that time, it was created in as late as 1945 by Tito's Communist Yugoslavia, with the initial support of Stalin the USSR, right? As for Ukraine and Belarus, they adopted Orthodox Christianity while still being a single country with Muscovite Russia at the end of the 10th century, so, if we just said Kievan Rus, it would do fine, right?
I completely agree. However this needs to be done tactfully, because Macedonian's claim they are in fact direct descendants of Alexander the Great, who existed before the Roman empire even began.
Possibly, a broad geographic term, and a map with present day political boundaries will be the best to describe this. Biz 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Remarkable Article!

message: There is some discussion about the ethnicity of the first Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Greats mother Helena_of_Constantinople at Talk:Helena_of_Constantinople, if anyone has thoughts E-mail adress 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate: Ethnic Origins of Constantine The Greats Mother  Helena 

message: Found at Template:User Byzantine or just copy {_{User Byzantine}} (without the _) in your user box.
Dryzen 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little something for Byzantinists 

message: Which was the stronger: the Byzantine Empire in 717AD or the Byzantine Empire in 1180AD?
 
Is that a tricky question? It is simply not as easy as that. Much more important is who ruled when? If a strong and able emperor(s) ruled during the timeframe of the first image and a weak and incompetent emperor(s) ruled the second, the Byzantine Empire as a whole was much stronger during the first image. Also very important is who was the enemy and what was his strength? Flamarande 08:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which was the Stronger?

message: In my opinion the section "The arrival of the Turks" is largely based on a single editor's POV. I don't know who compiled the section, but unless someone provides a source and citations, I'll proceed to heavy editing. Miskin 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources required 

message: known during most of its history to its contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks"   Is this right??? Cwiki 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also mentioned in the section "origin of the name". According to my sources that was the exclusive name that europeans used to refer to the Empire and its people (that or Graecia), hence it's important to mention it in the head, as it appears in every contemporary account. The "Byzantine Empire" is a name coined by later scholars, and the "Eastern Roman Empire" only lasted for 2 centuries. The Imperium Graecorum started off an derigatory term so that the Frankish Empire could claim "Imperium Graecorum", but it became the standard exonym of the state. If a Byzantine called himself "Roman" in a foreign language, they wouldn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Miskin 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true, the Islamic world did generally refer to Byzantium officially by its political name, "Rum", but a number of Arab and Jewish scholars who were more familiar with ancient Greek history used "Yunan" (<Ionian) in their writings, a collective term which was introduced by ancient Persians (by the time assimilated to Islam). It really is a complicated subject as the Byzantines themselves (even the pre-Heraclian dynasties) were not as naive to believe that all Romans had migrated to the Eastern part and taken up the Greek language. They main ethnic distinction was "Greeks vs Latins" both of which could boast on a Roman past, but only the former could have claims on the Imperial throne. Then again there's always the religious question. According to medieval accounts of church-disputes, the "Greco-Romans" did not consinder themselves the ancestors of those "Latin-Romans" who had crusified Christ (and were therefore condemned); they would thus justify the superiority of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of the Westeners, at least by the time of the crusades, the Byzantines were viewed as schismatic, modern Greeks who ruled over a corrupted, Oriental Empire. One of the leaders of the fourth crusade (I think Dandolo) reacted to Prince's Alexius' proposal by saying "We don't want Greeks bearing their gifts", drawing a parallel between the Byzantines and the Mycenaeans of the Trojan War. The Britannica article says that when Manuel I proposed to the Germans (also "Romans" at the time) a joint Imperial expedition against the Normans, Barbarossa responded that "An alliance between the Holy Roman Empire and the Empire of the Greeks, is not one amongst equals". For those reasons I thought that the most popular contemporary name needs to be mentioned in the head. Miskin 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every so often this discussion pops up. Calling them the Byzantines is indeed a nice compromise.Dryzen 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Empire of the Greeks 

message: Is there any way we could have a section which uses the following images together? Bigdaddy1204 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being spread out among the text (having each map to each section pertaining to the time the map present) is the most aestheticly pleasing and it conforms ot how other empire articles are written. Having them here is a an alternative. The best way to implement the flluctuating frontier would probobly be making a map with all the frontiers presented by varying colours in its own section of accompanying text. Of course the more conformed and pleasing methode might not always be the best methode.Dryzen 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The changing face of the Byzantine Empire

message: Does any know if there were theatrical plays in Byzantium? I think there was some controversy on the matter: some claimed that Byzantines only had religious representations, others that these representations were complicated enough to be regarded as art. If anyone knows sthg on the matter, it might be a good idea to add sthg in the article.
--Greece666 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They most likely kept the tradition of tragedies and definitly influenced the masses in plays of heroes and events, much like the romans and the greeks before them and the europeans after them. The power of such a media would definitly have not gone unoticed by the cunning imperial mind. But like many things that where common to the times, few authors probobly gave any thought to taking note of these. Dryzen 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is evident for Byzantine Theater in the early Byzantine period up until the advent of the iconoclastic period. As far as I know, the scholarly debate on the issue is whether certain aspects of Byzantine literature should be regarded as theatrical after this point. As for the period before the iconoclastic era, Byzantine Theater wasn't really highly charged tragedies or comedies but largely sort of what we would call 'low brow' performances with jugglers and things like that. I guess a useful source would also be, strangely enough in the context, Procopius' description of what Theodora used to get up to when she was an 'actress'. :) --86.138.0.221 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre 

message: Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe some you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers 

message: This discussion page seems a little long; can we use archives? Also, I noticed while exploring Byzantine topics that a "Byzantine culture" template exists at Template:Byzantine_culture. Could this be expanded to include the other Byzantine topics, such as the army, navy, certain leaders and cities, etc.? Right now, it's not even linked at this main article. A better Byzantine template would ease in navigation. --Zeality 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture template and archives 

message: I'm looking for volunteers to help with an improvement project on the article John II Komnenos. Anyone who is interested, your suggetions and comments on the article talk page would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John II Komnenos

message: Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you all might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty