Talk:Narses

message: The first sentence says this:
: 'Narses ... was with Belisarius, one of the great generals in the service of ... Justinian during the so-called "Reconquest" ...'
Is the intended meaning really the following (note the comma)?
: 'Narses ... was, with Belisarius, one of the great generals in the service of ... Justinian during the so-called "Reconquest" ...'
That is, is Narses notable because he "was with Belisarius" or because "was one of the great generals..."? Molinari 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent of first sentence? 

message: This article sounds like it has been patched up once too often.  After describing in detail (and third grade English) how Narses defused the Nika rebellion, it tells us again several pages later that Narses helped quash the rebellion.  On the other hand, it leaves out a crucial bit of information that I would be curious to know: how did a man with both ability and impressive ancestry wind up in Constantinople as a castrated slave?  Could the pedigree have been fake?
76.122.75.89 (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that Narses was probably captured by some wars between one of Justinian's predecessors and the Persians/Armenians. However, I cannot confirm this, as sources to Narses' life is relatively limited, seeing that history seems to have ignored him mostly. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Procopius mentions in the Wars vol I that Narses lead a Persian army in victory against a Roman army, this was during Justinus reign, if i recall correctly. At some later unspecified point in time, Narses changed sides, and fought with the Romans instead. 83.250.233.248 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy and omissions 

message: According to Warren T. Treadgold (A history of the Byzantine state and society, p. 202) the man in this picture may be actually Vitalian's nephew John, not Narses. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Treadgold's identification is one of several proposed. AFAIK traditionally this man has been identified with Narses. Anyhow, most of these identifications are conjectural. IIRC there has even been a suggestion that the mosaic was actually made during Theodoric the Great's rule. I've added a caption to make clear that this is a possible and traditional identification, not a certain one. Constantine   ✍  17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's better now. Thanks! --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Dear Barosaurus Lentus, I don't know wtf is Warren T. Treadgold, but I know exactly that Vitalian was born in 573, and was a 10 years older than Justinian. John's father was not very much older of him so John (or John The Bloody) was not older than Justinian, while the man which stands near to emperor is . So I don't think that it could be John The Bloody anyway, as well as  John the Cappodocian because he already was replaced in 538 while mosiac was created somewere betweeen 541-547. 
We can't say exactly who are this people on mosaic, we only Justinia Theodora and Maximian, while we see other portraits made from real persons, but who are they no one can say exactly, so even the theory of indentifiing bearded man with Belisarius is traditional as well as Narses theory
(vahan.hovh) 2:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay. :) I didn't know that this man has been traditionally identified as a Narses. I was only pointing it out because there were no sources or description in the image and other source said it could be different person. Warren Treadgold is National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Byzantine Studies at Saint Louis University. He is the author of A history of the Byzantine state and society as well as other books. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Narses 

message: The term Byzantine Empire is invented by later historians. Rome holds immense cultural value in western consciousness and the use of the term Byzantine to refer the Roman Empire is misleading and causes many people not to Realise that it is the same political entity. 
The term Byzantine is useful to refer to the later Eastern Roman Empire as it formed more Greek And orthodox christian identity. The Empire during Justinian’s reign was still very Roman and there hadnt been any drastic cultural or political change that merits the use of new name in the 5th-8th centuries. Huagdiwansui (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name Byzantine Empire to Roman Empire or Eastern Roman Empire 

message: Some statement, including those of Narses#Military_career, has apparenty confused Narses the Eunuch with Narses (comes), who was active at the same time. I wonder if there are confusions in the sources as well? Z 17:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Most especially, the Kamsakaran linkage seems to come from Narses the comes, and be disputable even there: See here, where it mentions the comes being one of three brothers putatively identified as kamsakarans, with narses himself being armenian but not one of them. https://www.academia.edu/44334304/Ruling_%C5%A0irak_and_Ar%C5%A1arunik_at_the_End_of_the_Fifth_Century_Sahak_Kamsarakan_and_a_Mathematical_Problem_of_Anania_%C5%A0irakaci_as_a_Historical_Source 199.212.65.36 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with [[Narses (comes)]]