Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty

message: This article hasn't quite started yet but is part of the plan to decentralize the Byzantine Empire into smaller articles, like Themata, if you will.Tourskin 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thank you! Your own edits deserve greater applause - you virtually finished the Komnenoi dynasty! Well anyways we still have a few more to go!Tourskin 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've finished the bare bones of this article and added a little meat too. Now I need to plug in the references (in wiki form, don't no one worry!) and add a few fancy images here and there and it should be ready to be linked from Byzantine Empire. 
By the way, I will also add Palaiologan art here as a section at the end. Soon.Tourskin 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, References 

message: Was the empire really in a position to survive in 1350? I thought that, after c.1328, the empire was doomed, because it had lost all of Asia to the Turks and nearly all of the Balkans to the Serbs and Bulgarians. There wasn't enough territory or manpower left to form the basis of a viable state, let alone defend itself from the attacks of its neighbours. What say you? Bigdaddy1204 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a fair point sorry I thought the map was different. In 1328 it was still good. In 1350 it was in the middle of its worst period, so its arguable whether or not it could have survived if the government stopped tearing itself apart with civil war and concentrated on defending itself. If Byzantium ever had the worst year it would be 1354 when the Turks crossed over and sealed the fate of the Byzantines. The thing is when it had acquired Epirus, its territorial extent looks similar to that in 1091 and we know that in 1091 they were able to recover the situation. I admit that on second glance it looks in a bad shape. Whether or not it is doomed is difficult to say but in 1350 it is probably more doomed than not. Also, I know that in 1091, they had Bulgaria but here they didn't! And here in 1350 they didn't have any Latin help!!  Tourskin 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1350

message: Well, the first thing I see is a big  tag at the top of the article, which seems to make it fall under the quick-fail criteria. Now it's not immediately obvious to me why the tag is there, given that there are, at least at first glance, a large number of wiki-links in the article, but from looking at the article edit history, the tag seems to have been placed by in good faith by User:Hmains along with a large number of useful copyedits, not vandalism. I'm going to drop Hmains a note, asking for details on the tag, but unless he explains that it was put there in error, I'm going to have fail the Wikipedia:Good article review without further examination. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the 'Byzantium under the Palaiologoi's' article: when I first found this article, it had almost no wikilinks. I proceeded to mark the article as wikify and then worked on linking it up. I did the most obvious links, but it ended up with some redlinks. I did not think I did a complete job and also thought that some of the redlinks might be turned blue with some searching work through WP, possibly finding misspellings, alternate names etc. So that is why I left the wikify notice on it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds reasonable, then. Quick-failing GA (if 1 day can be considered quick) until that is done. I'd also suggest that the refs be moved after the punctuation throughout. Then it can be renominated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Even with the generic caption Classical literature that was studied included mythical figures such as Dionysus, this is merely decorative here. A classicising sculpture of the Palaeologan period, or a Greek sculpture that was in Constantinople, would serve better as illustrative material. --Wetman (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would be so kind as to find such art? Otherwise, it stays. Tourskin (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: "The empire's political system, based as it was around an autocratic and semi-divine emperor who exercised absolute power, had become obsolete,"
Could someone explain this to me? Why was it that Byzantine autocracy was obsolete by the 15th century, yet Russian autocracy would form the basis of a viable state until the early 20th century, and Prussian absolutism in the 18th century is regarded as creating the most militarily efficient state of Europe? (Not to mention Bourbon France's success centuries after the fall of Constantinople.) No doubt the Byzantine system had its own unique aspects, but I think claims that religiously-based autocracy was an "obsolete" system in the mid-15th century demands some explanation. What's an example of a non-obsolete political system in the mid-15th century?
76.215.108.222 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete political system?

message: This article is simply too wordy.
We need to trim it.
HumanCentipedeStyle (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too wordy 

message: The map in this article showing the year 1263 is woefully inaccurate. Sogut had already fallen to the Turks in 1231, and Eskisehir hadn't been under Byzantine rule since c.1185 at the latest. The frontiers of the restored empire stretched nowhere near that far east, and hadn't done for centuries. That map is misleading and gives the impression that the Empire held far more territory in Anatolia than was in fact the case at this time. 
Below, I have posted a more accurate map, which reflects the historical evidence. I propose the frontier from this map should be applied to the one featured in the article. Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map is inaccurate - it needs to be updated 

message: A. Why does the geographical extent of the empire at its height need a source? Read the article on Byzantine history, it has a myriad of sources.
B. .. "Greek culture came to dominate" - "cultural diversity" - firstly, did Greek culture not always dominate since Greek was adopted as the state language of the Empire centuries before (and even in Pagan times was not the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods the same and the architecture and the literature and everything else fused together into the Greco-Roman world..)?
Secondly, I do not see how political terms of "cultural diversity" belong in this article. It is so loaded with the current European way of looking at things, and did not even exist before 1935 (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=cultural&allowed_in_frame=0) so I think we should not try to force down over an article about a 14th century subject, what appears to be 20th and 21st century thinking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.231.207 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greek Byzantium" section 

message: Can you check where the source of the Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty#Conclusion is? -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion section source