Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Byzantine Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Removal of sourced RS content

Dr.K., why have you reverted [1] an addition to the article that notes that the Armenian and Slavic languages were spoken in frontier districts on reasons of CLOP and close "paraphrasing". There are no other words to substitute terms like Armenian. The article only mentions that such languages were used by an educated class, but makes no mention of their wide use in frontier districts. Please elaborate as the content is sourced RS. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K., please participate in the discussion and show good faith. I notice you make certain claims about "plagiarism and copyvio" in your edit summary [2] which is not the case. A small and attributed quote is provided and both the sentence convey the point of the source.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:CLOP. This is a high-visibility FA. WP:CLOP is non-negotiable, especially here. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg you added that content in that form first [3]. No one said anything about CLOP then. Whats changed?Resnjari (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add anything, I removed it, and then after your reverts, moved it to the Language section where it belongs. But I didn't have access to the source (it is not viewable online), so I assumed good faith that it was legit. Khirurg (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually no. First you removed it [4] and then added it [5] back to the article in a new area from where it had been before, as well as having trimmed part of it. You did make changes from what i initially had added [6]. I expressed no opposition to what you had done and kept overall your phrasing and changes made to the sentence thereafter [7], [8]. As for internet access and so on, that's your issue. The weblink to the source was provided in the reference.Resnjari (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The specific section already offers info about the use of Armenian and Slavonic and it's in detail. I'm afraid that Resnjary needs to read the current version instead of adding repetetive text which is quite bad for the prose of a high visibility article.Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The proposed addition reads "Armenian and Slavonic languages were also widely spoken, especially in the frontier districts" however a couple of lines below in the same paragraph the current version reads "Similarly ... Armenian,.... became significant among the educated in their provinces" & " Later foreign contacts made Old Church Slavic... important in the Empire and its sphere of influence.". I can't believe that an editor is unable to read the current prose but nevertheless decides to behave in stubborn fashion . Not to mention useless revert-warring to damage the prose with dublicate information.Alexikoua (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually you make my point without realsing it. The article does mention Armenian but in relation to the educated classes. My addition is about the commonfolk. Regarding Slavonic language and foreign contacts, once again it mentions the language, but nothing about the commonfolk or border districts. My addition is about the frontier districts of the empire where there is nothing mentioned in the article. As i have said time and time again, this is not covered in the article and not repetitive text.Resnjari (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You are into Wikipedia:SHOT: both languages are covered in terms of geography: "its sphere of influence" and "became significant among the educated in their provinces". Please don't damage the prose with inappropriate repetitions. This is disruptive editting. Some minor rephrasing might be fine but simply adding this piece offers nothing.20:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk)

"its sphere of influence" and "became significant among the educated in their provinces" is not the same. I said and will say again the educated class is different from the commonfolk. And there is nothing about the commonfolk of the frontier districts.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Armenia was a frontier province. You understand that there is a certain issue with the prose. In the same section we mentiion the same languages twice with similar (or almost identical) meaning.Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I know what Armenia was during the Byzantine era and the Balkan regions as well. Often they formed the Byzantine frontier provinces/districts. They expanded or contracted depending on wars and the geopolitical conditions over the centuries. It is true the article does mention languages, that is not contested, but there is a difference between an educated class speaking a given language and the commonfolk speaking a language. Two distinct groups of people, the first being small from which the sociopolitical and military elite drew their numbers from and the second was the peasantry, made up of farmers, skilled workers and other people involved in many day to day professions of the time and so on (the majority population).Resnjari (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. @Dr.K. made the important additions to the article.[9].Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The prose looks good contrary to the previous addition which was highly problematic.Alexikoua (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You were against any addition of content about languages of the commonfolk in border districts, claiming as your comments show that it was covered in the article. Now you have changed your tune. I wonder whats changed?Resnjari (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again you put words on other peoples mouths. I've statde "Some minor rephrasing might be fine". Simply saying: Dr.K. edit is fine but yours (which you edit warred with enthousiasm) was problematic in terms of prose and CLOP.Alexikoua (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah i haven't. See you were against it outright. Actually it was you and only you [10] like your edit summary states: "already covered in section +inappropriate generalisation". The current thread also shows this as well. Other editors at least acknowledged the material was useful to the article.Resnjari (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway unless there is something of substance to discuss i am not going to bother with this further. Find something else to do.Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again putting words on others people's mouths. Damaged prose and CLOP as you have been instructed needs to be avoided. Constructive editors usually avoid edit warring and prefer to participate in tallkpage in a constructive manner. BRD breaches and trolling can end up with serious blocks.Alexikoua (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I see this is a focus for you. The matter or content has been resolved after you opposed any material of the sort and actually i did use the talkpage (note i opened the talkpage thread of which you are participating in). As for the rest, please these threads are not about wp:idontlikeit and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about editors whom one does not see eye to eye (see: wp:notaforum).Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again putting words on other mouths "some minor rephrasing might be fine but simply adding this piece offers nothing". You need to familiarize yourself with the subject. Sterile reverts usual lead to blocks.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"minor rephrasing" what is that ? Of what? No further elaboration is given. You were not clear, Overall as your comment shows "but simply adding this piece offers nothing". That was the position you had toward the content. Other editors did not share that view and now its once again part of the article. Its done.Resnjari (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nice you believe that about Dr.K.'s edit. It was only you that shares this view & its disappointing that you violated 3rr once again for nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the diff where the content was added [11] by Dr.K. and this is what was said in the edit summary "Thank you Resnjari for your intervention. Adding your edit, as agreed, to eliminate CLOP problems." I only go by that.Resnjari (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If any of you lot are planning to add other 'minor' languages, you may need to add in Berber, Aramaic and Arabic as well which were also spoken in frontier provinces. There needs to be mention of the Ghassanids; I'm surprised the article doesn't mention it since it acted as Byzantium's buffer against Persia (and it's own Arab buffer, the Lakhmids for a certain time). The "First Arab Siege" that this article mentions was preceded by the conquest of the Byzantine Ghassanid territory. The "Arab" narrative presented in the article seems to be very selective.

Regarding the 'too long' template, I think the "Culture" section could be made shorter since they have detailed spinoff articles of their own. Its "Cuisine" sub-section can be cut out entirely and just keep the spinout link. In the "Legacy" section, the 3rd paragraph just seems to summarize and restate what everything before it already did, it's redundant. DA1 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestions. If you know of RS sources, place them here so editors can have a read before anyone proceeds on edits about the Berber, Aramaic and Arabic (and possibly Punic) languages and so on to the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggested those since I noticed some mention of minor languages above. I was just reading the article and in the "Language" section there is mention of Syriac and Arabic. Syriac is a dialect of Middle Aramaic. It also states "later foreign contacts made Old Church Slavic, Middle Persian and Arabic important". Middle Persian was spoken during the Sasanian Empire and earlier, which predates Byzantine Empire so it cannot be a "later foreign contact" if it existed from day 1. The same is possible for Arabic where the Ghassanids also predate the Byzantine state. The two shouldn't be bundled with Slavic. –DA1 (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A few articles related to Byzantine Berber history worth looking at: Mauro-Roman Kingdom (King Masuna allied with the Byzantines, later partly annexed), Kingdom of Altava (allied with Byzantine against Vandals, later annexed), allies (Antalas and Nasamones), Berber insurrection (Cutzinas and Stotzas), Laguatan, and the four battles of the Caliphate's North Africa conquest mention Byzantine Berber generals and allied tribes. –DA1 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A week later and no objections or suggestions so far; I'm going to start cutting down on the Culture and Legacy sections. DA1 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have an idea of going about it, its all yours. If someone contests an edit you make, then the talkpage is free to use. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

In my opinion, as the Empire didn't technically exist during 1204-1261 AD, the timeline should break into 395-1204, 1261-1453.

The Latin Empire, the Empire of Nicaea and Empire of Trebizond all considered themselves to not just be successors but to be the exact same state as the Byzantine Empire. The fact that a lineage of emperors were in Constantinople 1204-1261 and that the Empire of Nicaea (which is considered to be the legitimate Byzantine government-in-exile today) existed 1204-1261 and retook the city is more than enough to not have a break in the timeline. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a valid perspective, but the role of Wikipedia is not to represent individual viewpoints, but the scholarly consensus, and to acknowledge differences in this perspective if they are prominent. If there is a worthwhile scholarly source arguing that the Empire didn't exist during those years, it might merit inclusion. -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Translation of Basileia Rhōmaiōn

Recent edits changed the translation of Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων from "Roman Empire" to "Kingdom/Empire of the Romans". To prevent an edit war and further conflicts later down the line I thought it best to bring it up here on the talk page. I do agree that "Empire of the Romans" is a more literal translation of Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων than "Roman Empire" but translating Βασιλεία as "Kingdom" is more problematic in my view.

The problematic nature can be inferred quite well from the article on Basileus here on wikipedia (the section on "Romans and Byzantines"). In the Byzantine Empire, the term Basileus came to equate Emperor, not just "king" as it had been used before in earlier Greek states. Rulers recognized as kings (such as the rulers of the Barbarian kingdoms in the territory formerly ruled by the Western Roman Empire) were referred to as rēx or rēgas (hellenized from the Latin "rex"), not as Basileus. The title "Basileus" was only bestowed on a few foreign rulers, such as the Sasanian Persian Emperors, which we today equate with Emperors (not kings).

Walrasiad brought up the title of "Autokrator" as equating "Emperor" which is not entirely correct. It is a greek translation of "Imperator" (but Imperator was far from the only or even primary title of the previous Roman emperors) but was only used before the adoption of Basileus as Autokratōr Kaisar and after the coronation of Charlemagne when it was used in combination with Basileus (Basileus Autokrator). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The term "Autokrator" is the term for "Emperor"/"Imperator" and "Basileos" is the term for "King"/"Rex". That is the correct sense of the words, and how you'll find it in all early Latin-Greek translations of documents. The phrase "Basileos Romaoin" is literally "King of the Romans". That is the correct sense in which the term "King" is used - as a king is a ruler of a folk, a people (which is the sense "Romaion" is being used here). "Emperor" is a rank in the Roman hierarchy, rooted in Roman Republican institutions (which has no kings and refers to no folk).

The Sassanids don't have "Emperors". Their title is "King" - more precisely "King of Kings" (Shah an shah), and refers explicitly to a "people" ("Shahanshah of the Iranian people"). Heraclius adopted the term "Basileos Romaion" precisely in imitation of the Persian title - adopting Basileus = "King" and Romaion = "Roman people" - two terms never used in the Roman Empire before.

Translating it to "Emperor of the Romans" or "Empire of the Romans" is grammatically and institutionally incorrect. "Emperor" is a title in a Roman hierarchy, constitutionally embedded in republican institutions, which refers to a "civitas", not a folk. You are "Emperor of Rome" or "Roman Emperor", but never "Emperor of the Romans". It would be as awkward as calling the US president "President of the Americans".

Meaning: "Emperor" translates as "Autokrator", which is the title you'll see Roman emperors walking around in in Greek translation. "Basileos Romaion" is "King of the Romans", an oriental-style title referring to a people rather than a civitas, adopted by Heraclius in conscious imitation of the Persian royal title. It is an entirely new title, which gradually superseded the old one in usage. But it does not translate to the same words.

P.S. the Byzantine chancellery also referred to the Abbasid Caliph as "Basileos of the Arabs", that is "King of the Arabs". The Caliphs, of course, were neither kings nor emperors, but formally "Commander of the Faithful". That doesn't mean "Basileos Romaion" should translate into "Caliphate of the Romans".

"King of the Romans" and "Kingdom of the Romans" are proper translations that should not be removed. You may make a note that it de facto is the same person that used to be called "Autokrator"/"Emperor" and note it can informally or for expediency be used interchangably. But removing it in the definition part is misleading the translation and burying the notably significant change in meaning of "Roman" (from civitas to folk) it seeks to accomplish. Walrasiad (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think one important thing you are leaving out here is historiography, which is one of the most important subjects in terms of the Byzantine Empire since "Byzantine" in of itself is a historiographical term. The Sassanid Shahanshahs were "Kings of Kings", yes, but we equate their "kingdom" today to an Empire and the title of Shahanshah with one of "Imperial", not just royal. It is obvious that the Byzantines made a distinction between kings and emperors and that "Basileus" came to mean something more than "king" to them. The literal translation of "Basileus" may be "King" but it was the term commonly used for the emperors in the greek-speaking East already during the classical Roman Empire.

When Byzantine Emperors used Latin instead of Greek in documents they even translated Basileus to Imperator themselves; coins of Michael III (r. 842-867, long after the adoption of Greek) with Latin inscriptions refer to him as Michael Imperator, his junior co-emperor Basil I is called Basilius Rex to illustrate him being of lower rank. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with common usage. I have a problem only at the moment when the specific phrase is being explicitly translated. I needs to be careful and not misleading. Particularly as it brings along a very significant change of the term "Roman" as well. Walrasiad (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the explicit translation of Basileia would be "Kingdom", but I think just putting it as "Kingdom/Empire" without further explanation might make things more confusing than they need to be and shouldn't be done without further explanation somewhere in the article as to how the meaning of Basileus changed from "king" to something more (especially given how they themselves thought Basileus = Imperator as I linked above). I would be okay with changing it to "Kingdom/Empire of the Romans" if this was also adressed in more detail (in the "Nomenclature" section maybe?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind merely a parenthetical "(literally "Kingdom of the Romans", but commonly rendered "Empire of the Romans")" at the translation point and leave it at that. Walrasiad (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"so the explicit translation of Basileia would be "Kingdom" "

The Greek term for kingdom is Βασίλειο (in Demotic Greek) or Βασίλειον (in Katharevousa). Βασιλεία translates to (depending on context) "kingship" or "reign" or "monarchy". For dictionary definitions, see:

Perhaps the note could then be

Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων may be transliterated in Latin as Basileia Rhōmaiōn (literally Monarchy of the Romans, but commonly rendered Empire of the Romans)

It would be a correct translation and showcase the important transition from a theoretically republican office to a monarchic one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ichtyovenator for initiating this discussion. I am glad that there is, if I am not misreading anyone, agreement about the latter half of the phrase. My 2c regarding the former: the question of translation is a tricky one and even more so when we deal with political terms loaded with ideological signification, as -it seems to me- is the case with βασιλεία. The way participants in this discussion write about the issue seems to me to betray the adherence to the notion that there exists such a thing as an one-to-one correspondence between terms of the [Greek] vocabulary of the Byzantine Romans and words of the English language, which, I am afraid, is a false premise. For, as happens especially with terms of a society's political vocabulary and especially those that were used for a long period of time in different socio-political enviroments, βασιλεία (it is no different with "empire") is a word that has been used to denote a number of closely related, but not identical significations. It suffices, I believe, to refer to the Suda, whose entries for the term contain the following: "τὸ ἀξίωμα" ("the [kingly] office/rank"), "τὸ ἔθνος τὸ βασιλευόμενον, οἷον Περσῶν, Ἰνδῶν, Ἀράβων" ("the ethnos [=population/people] ruled by a king; such as that of the Persians, the Indians, the Arabs"), "ἀνυπεύθυνος ἀρχή" ("unaccountable rulership"), "ἡ βασιλεία κτῆμα τῶν κοινῶν" ("the basileia is a possession of the people"). The questions, then, I think, that we should answer are: (a) which of the many significations of the word did the Byzantine Romans had in mind when calling their state βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων and (b) how to best communicate this signification to the reader of the enwiki?

Hitherto discussion revolved around the closely related concept of βασιλεύς. I am afraid that the clear-cut distiction drawn above between αὐτοκράτωρ (autokrator) and βασιλεύς (basileus [not basileos]) is not correct. For, pace Walrasiad, the term αὐτοκράτωρ could be accompagnied by the genitive -- as happens in the description of John II Komnenos both in his depiction in Hagia Sophia (see the image on the right) and in this illuminated manuscript (Ioannis is the figure on the left). That we should not be guided by this notion that βασιλεύς and βασιλεία were for the Byzantine Romans terms that could not operate in the republican ideological universe, is I think another thought that does not seem to be accepted by all contemporary scholars or Byzantine Romans themselves. So, for example, Zonaras's use of the term βασιλεία is rendered in a recent work as "collective sovereignty" and is taken to mean "the collective expression of an ethnos' sovereignty" (From Constantinople to the Frontie, pp. 48-50, 56-7). The accommodability (if you pardon the neologism) of βασιλεία in a republican (=constitutionalist, not antiroyalist) intellectual framework is otherwise defended in another recent work, Kaldellis's The Byzantine Republic, who describes the βασιλεία as "the imperial office or monarchy and its authority, functions, and extensions" (p. 48), which operates within the πολιτεία (translated by K as "republic" or "state"). It is thus that the same author writes that "in Greek, one can take the basileia of the Romans to be the national kingdom of the Romans" (Kaldellis, Streams of gold, p. 145). As a consequence, what user:Dimadick writes, though naturally valid for *modern* Greek, is not entirely correct for the Greek terminology of the east/Byzantine Romans.

If, then, βασιλεία is to be understood as monarchy/kingdom or something similar, what is to be done with "Empire"? I am afraid that a possible source of confusion lies in the many significations of the English word this time. For, an "empire" is not merely "the territory or countries under the jurisdiction and dominion of an emperor (rarely of a king), usually of greater extent than a kingdom, always comprising a variety in the nationality of, or the forms of administration in, constituent and subordinate portions". As perhaps the most important among living historians of English political discourse writes, "the primary meaning in English of 'empire' or imperium had been 'national sovereignty': the 'empire' of England over itself, of the crown over England in the church as well as state, the independence of the English church-state from all other modes of sovereignty" [J. G. A. Pocock "Political Thought in the English-Speaking Atlantic, 1760-1790, Part 1: The Imperial Crisis" in The Varieties of British Political Thought (1500-1800), p. 257.] It is thus that the Byzantine "Empire" is not to be understood in the same sense as we speak, for example, of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To corroborate this, I turn again to Kaldellis who writes, in his Byzantine Republic, p. xiv, that "By “empire” in relation to Byzantium I mean that it was governed by a ruler whom we conventionally call an emperor, in effect a monarch, the basileus of the Romans. In other words, in my usage “empire” means “monarchy,”".

I conclude by saying that what prompted me to alter the translation of the term "βασιλεία" in the infobox stems from the hypothesis that for most readers of this article the word "empire" will uniquely direct their thinking to the colonial empires of the age of imperialism and such, which is far from the case with the βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, especially after its population became culturally and linguistically more homogenous after the Arab conquests etc. Given the polysemy of both "βασιλεία" and "empire", I thought we should help the article's reader grasp something of the full range of the term, even its semantic fluidity. I would agree with Ichthyovenator's proposal that the matter should be discussed, if only briefly, in the article's body (it seems to me that the section on "Government and bureaucracy" should contain a few lines on the political ideology of the Byzantine Romans and their thoughts about their state's organization) and, having in mind that it would not be amiss to gently nudge the reader towards which of the meaning of "Empire" is here denoted, also that some kind of dual translation of βασιλεία, as the one proposed, should be provided. As the English language is not my mother tongue, I will leave this question of how best to encapsulate it in the few words of an infobox's footnote to someone more sure of her or his understanding of the reasoning of native English speakers. Best, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ashmedai 119 for the detailed look at the term in question! My main problem with just changing the the note to "Kingdom/Empire of the Romans" was as I previously said that I thought it would make the whole thing more confusing, especially given how we today associate Kingdom and Empire with somewhat different things and the well-known historical Roman disdain for kings. My angle is that the Βασιλεία is naturally ruled over by the Βασιλεύς and since the Byzantines equated the Βασιλεύς with the Roman Emperor, then obviously they must have equated Βασιλεία with an Empire (the definition of "Empire" here being a state ruled by an Emperor, not necessarily something like a colonial empire). I would be all for changing the text to something like I proposed above (Monarchy of the Romans... commonly rendered Empire of the Romans) but I also agree that I think the matter should be discussed in the article itself (though the article is already being criticized for its length so I'm not sure that will fly). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply, Ichthyovenator. Your proposal ("Monarchy of the Romans ... commonly rendered Empire of the Romans") seems fine to me, though, as I said, I would defer to the opinion of someone with a better intuitive understanding of English. However, I do not have the time to review the literature on Byzantine political theory and compress it into a few sentences to be added in the article. Just as a note to someone reading this discussion who would be in interested in writing this paragraph on the Byzantine basileus, it seems to me it should take into consideration the entries by Kazhdan in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, the contribution of Magdalino in the Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium, Ahrweiler's Ideologie Politique (along with Magdalino's article on its shortcomings) and Chrysos's essay in the DOP. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

But it's literally Monarchy/Kingdom/Dominion of the Romans. Barjimoa (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

One thought to keep in mind here: The translation is supposed to be into the language of the reader, including respect for the reader's understanding of the words, not necessarily the inhabitants'. (I, OTOH, am quite interested in the latter, so thanks for this discussion!)

English-speaking readers are already used to phrases such as "Japanese emperor" and "Chinese emperor", with some understanding that these are/were not quite the same as kings -- and with no nuances about the Japanese or Chinese etymology for their leaders' titles. Unless we are trying to inform our readers that the Byzantine state was in fact a kingdom, it does not help to appeal to etymology of either Greek or Latin to decide whether to write empire for Basileus. The modern English word that describes the Byzantine state is empire. Right? Jmacwiki (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait a second, no one ever suggested to initiate the article by saying that this was not an Empire or by calling it Kingdom. However, the article says at one point that the literal way to translate the self-description of Basileia Romaion is "Roman Empire" (instead of "Monarchy of the Romans", which is to my knowledge the correct translation). That's a legit issue. When wiki articles provide a literal translation for Chinese Emperor or Japanese Emperor, they do exactly just that: a literal translation. Barjimoa (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Political aftermath

Has Murad & Mesih Pasha are not official grandsons of Manuel II Palaiologos. In best case scenario they are bastards of Theodore II Palaiologos of Morea because Mesih Pasha was born around 1443. Only source that they are nephews of Constantine XI Palaiologos is from Historia Turchesca written in 1515 so this statements are false.

Second false claim in article is "emperor had never been technically hereditary". During XV century it has been without question hereditary. In line with this had Constantinople not fallen Constantine XI Palaiologos might have been succeeded by Demetrios Palaiologos (no sons) then by Thomas Palaiologos and then his sons Andreas Palaiologos (until 1502) and Manuel Palaiologos (until 1512). If we want to continue this hereditary inheritance of Byzantine Empire next in line is Ferrante Kastrioti duke of Galatina which was grandson of Skanderbeg and great grandson of Thomas Palaiologos.

Point of all this is that Has Murad & Mesih Pasha are not in Byzantine line of inheritance and they are not Palaiologos.95.168.118.173 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Empire had never been technically hereditary. There were no formal succession laws in the Empire at any point during its history. Had the empire been officially hereditary John VIII:s younger brothers wouldn't have made a fuss when Constantine XI was proclaimed emperor. No way the Byzantine aristocracy would have accepted Catholic Italian descendants of the Palaiologos dynasty as emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Banner instead of Coin?

Sorry for reviving this debate, but I think that a banner would better represent the ERE than a coin. Which banner though? The tetragramic cross. According to the "Byzantine flags and insignia" page, the cross was used quite some time before the Palaiologos family came to power. Here's a quote: images of flags with crosses quartered with golden discs survive from the 10th century, and a depiction of a flag almost identical to the Palaiologan design is known from the early 13th century.

So, the banners similar to the Palaiologos existed long before they came to power, and some variants of that existed since late antiquity. I would say that is a good enough reason to replace the coin. --85.113.183.175 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to use the actual banner/flag rather than a coin. Any objections to this?

I would still object to this. The consensus a while back was to use the coin, not only for consistency with the articles on the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire but also because the Byzantine Empire never had a flag as such. The tetragramic cross really only becomes prominent during the Palaiologos dynasty, and is appropriately used on that dynasty's page; Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty. Constantine the Great, Justinian or Alexios Komnenos would probably not have flown that banner and for most of its history the Empire as a whole would probably be more represented with banners depicting an eagle (one-headed at first and two-headed later) or a Chi Rho.Ichthyovenator (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Truly? I've reviewed the archives going back to 2012 and I see no such consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong. The notion that the Byzantine Empire didn't have a modern flag is of course obvious, as is the notion that there isn't a single representative symbol that was used throughout their history. That does not mean that a coin is the best representative symbol. In fact, it's a bit bizarre to feature a coin where several actual alternatives would be reasonable. The tetragrammatic cross, being the most "recent", is a legitimate option. But it's not the only option. The iconic eagle or the Chi Rho are absolutely equally viable alternatives. I'm not sure why anyone would think that an individual coin is a better representation than actually using any heraldry/symbology. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said it before: If there is no symbol that represents the empire in its entirety, then the logical solution is not to include one in the box at all. Because that's the only purpose that field in the box has: showing a symbol that represents the empire in its entirety. I still fail to understand the horror vacui that so many editors seem to suffer from when it comes to filling the top right corner of a page with colorful spots just for the sake of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your hostility here is a bit strange. It's perfectly common and standard to display heraldry in an infobox. It's not exactly unreasonable to suggest that it be included. It does seem a bit unreasonable to suggest that there are no symbols that represent the Byzantine Empire. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that heraldry wasn't really a thing in the Byzantine Empire, the "Byzantine flag" was popularized under the Palaiologos dynasty (which as said, uses the flag in its article) but I'm not sure if we have any source as to whether it was extensively used in the same way an actual flag would be, even during this period. There are no symbols that represent the entire 1000+ years of imperial history, the only things close would be coinage (though maybe the backside of a coin, since those tended to stay the same, rather than the front depicting a particular emperor would be better), an eagle (but that's also a bit problematic since neither the one-headed or the double-headed were used during the entire empire) or a Chi Rho (though I'm unsure if those were used up until the end). I agree that the hostility is a bit unnecessary but I do not see the need to put in a symbol just for the sake of putting in a symbol. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as "hostile". But I still think that for the infobox to work as it should, the field ought to be reserved to things that represent the empire in its entirety, and a flag that was used only during a short subspan of its history (and one where the empire was essentially just a shadow of its former self) doesn't really do that. I also still think that the entire sequence of discussions we've had about it over the years suffers from what I just called a horror vacui – an unspoken assumption that the slot needs to be filled with something, just for the sake of filling it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that if we are looking for a representative object, then for me that is definitely the gold solidus obverse with Christ Pantocrator; Byzantium is often associated with untold riches, and the solidus was very widely circulated, the standard for gold coins for nigh a millenium, and even gave the name "bezant" to gold coins in general. The flag is representative only of the Palaiologan era. But I also agree with Future Perfect that we do not have to put something in there just because we can. Constantine ✍ 13:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Can anyone explain the logic behind those reverts: 1 2 Regarding the 1st edit, this more or less a common Wikipedia practice. I don't see the argument against using it here, especially if we add a literal translation. For the 2nd edit, there's a nomenclature section so why should this badly phrased paragraph stay in the head? Much of that paragraph lacks sources, e.g. the claim: "its citizens continued to refer [...] to themselves as 'Romans'". This is downright wrong as it was only Greek-speaking citizens who referred to themselves as 'Romaioi/Romans', but Greek-speaking citizens were not the only inhabitants of the Empire. So this is a very misleading claim to be in the head, albeit without a source. Raikkonen (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that large scale changes to the opening paragraph of a Featured Article that receives ~5000 visits every day might not be a good idea to just do without consulting the talk page to discuss such changes first. The part about self-identity of the empire and its inhabitants is highly important to understand in regards of the Byzantine Empire and it should definitely stay in the lede section. Its citizens didcontinue to refer to themselves as Romans. That this would only refer to the Greek-speaking inhabitants is wrong since the inhabitants of Byzantine North Africa, Egypt and the Levant were just as Roman as those in Greece and continued to regard themselves as such. Sources please. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious unless a policy defines it. Anyway - the self-identification of the state, its Greek-speaking Orthodox inhabitants, and all its other inhabitants, are not things that intersect in the way that the paragraph in question implies. This view is anachronistic. Mentioning Greece is sort of out of context here since Greek-speakers inhabited parts of Asia Minor, North Africa, and the middle East at the time (that includes Byzantine North Africa and the Levant). But do you have any sources to suggest that non-native Greek-speakers, non-Orthodox peoples, such as Armenians, Jews, Venetians and other Latins in Constantinople, etc. identified themselves as 'Romaioi'? (I'm using the Greek word here because Latins, outside and inside Byzantium, may have identified themselves as "Romans" in their language, but not as Romans/Romaioi in way the Byzantines meant it.) Raikkonen (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, obvious or not, the logic has now been explained to you. Personally I prefer the version now restored. Especially on big popular articles, I don't like a string of translations in the first line. If you want to, you should continue the argument here. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine self-identity changed over time. The original Roman form of identity, which continued for centuries in the Byzantine Empire was simply that if you were a citizen of the Roman/Byzantine state, you were a Roman. This view is illustrated quite well in for instance the letter from Emperor Basil I to the Frankish Emperor Louis II (871, link) which specifies that "Roman" is not an ethnic or cultural qualifier, but a national one. Any subject of the emperor is a Roman. In some ancient Roman documents, you can retain an ethnic qualifier as well (see for instance numerous inscriptions by barbarian soldiers in the Roman army, who seem to identify as a civic Roman and an ethnic Frank/Goth/etc.). "Roman" only became an ethnic-type thing later on (when is not exactly clear) in the Byzantine Empire, as the borders crumbled to contain areas completely dominated by Greek-speakers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just adding that having a Roman citizenship and a Roman self-identification did not necessarily overlap in Byzantium. You could be a Roman legally but this doesn't mean that you would identify as a Roman like the article currently claims. Even in the military, it wasn't the same as in ancient Rome, since the Varangian Guard, Slavs, and Armenians were viewed as missionaries. Anyway, I'm not here to make original research so I prefer to cite a scholar (Anthony Kaldellis) who is considered a specialist in the topic of "Byzantine identity":

"'Roman' was not a label held by or projected upon all subjects of the state collectively and indiscriminately. It was not an abstract, "umbrella identity" that could encompass Greeks-speakers, Armenians, Slavs, Jews, and whoever else happened to live in territories governed by the state. Rather, it entailed specific exclusions based on language, religion, upbringing, and custom; in sum, it was an ethnicity. [...] If an imperial subject was sufficiently foreign as to speak primarily Slavic or Armenian, he would likely have been called a Slav or Armenian in imperial service, not Roman. [...] Under their own rule, the people we call Byzantines were, in their own eyes, Romans: Greek-speaking and Orthodox.", Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (2019). Doesn't this prove that some information in the article head is misleading/outdated? Raikkonen (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The point is that at the very least a significant majority of the people living within the Byzantine Empire at any one given time would have self-identified as Roman. As Kaldellis says; "Under their own rule, the people we call Byzantines were, in their own eyes, Romans: Greek-speaking and Orthodox". We don't say that the citizens of England don't self-identify as "English" just because a small minority of them might not self-identify as such for various reasons. In the same way, I don't think saying that the Byzantines self-identified as "Roman" without any clarification is misleading or problematic. It was after all the official position of the Byzantine state that it represented the Roman Empire (which it of course, legally did), with an Emperor of the Romans governing the Roman people. The article as it stands is huge (more than twice the recommended article size), so fitting in a detailed discussion on self-identity isn't really viable. I do think you might be able to incorporate more such information in the Byzantine Greeks article. Even better would be undertaking some expansion efforts at the underdeveloped Population of the Byzantine Empire, which at the moment only includes total population estimates and nothing on self-identity and various ethnic groups.

I'm sorry if I came across as rude with my comments or reverts here, the lede section of this article and the first few opening paragraphs are changed tiringly often which rarely results in something better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, no offence taken. What you're suggesting sounds very reasonable and also happens to be the view that Kaldellis shares, i.e. that, when referring to the Byzantine people, the Eastern Roman "ethnicity" should be (by default) referring to the people who self-identified as Romaioi, and not to the other (numerous) ethnic groups that found themselves in and out of the borders of the empire periodically. Therefore, if we agree that the Byzantines/Eastern Romans were in fact only the Greek-speaking Orthodox people of the empire, don't you think that it would be crucial to mention this in the head of article? For example, a simple edit here would be "[...] the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its primarily Greek-speaking, Christian Orthodox eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople". In addition, wouldn't it abide by common practice to include the native Greek and Latin names of the state (with literal translation) on the opening line? This used to be the structure of the lead a long time ago, I never understood why it got changed without obvious reasons. Raikkonen (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that because the Byzantine Empire existed for roughly a thousand years, it is difficult to offer such precise statements. That the people of the empire saw themselves as "Roman" is true for the duration of its entire existence, whether these people represented all citizens as a national identity (as in the earlier centuries) or just a majority of citizens as something more like an ethnic identity (as in the later centuries). In the earlier centuries, self-identifying Romans could be found which did not speak Greek. There is also of course the point that Latin continued to be the administrative language for quite a while.

Specifying that it were the "Christian Orthodox" provinces is already sort-of in the lede ("orientated towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity") but I think inserting it in the way you suggest would be somewhat anachronistic? Before the schism, the Byzantines would have followed the "unified" Nicene church, after all, and probably self-identified as "Catholic Christians" (which has little to do with modern catholicism, but I believe it is the identifier Justinian uses in his documents?).

I do think articles of this scale, with this many daily visitors, should have a consensus for any edits in the most prominent parts (e.g. the lede and the infobox), so I think you would do best to wait for more people to chime in on this before making the edits you are talking about. I agree that it is common practice to include the native names of any given state in its opening line but I do think that this article warrants some further explanation of why the state called itself the Roman Empire already in the lede, which I think it does quite well now. You might notice that this isn't the only break with common practice the article does, for instance the name at the top of the infobox is inexplicably "Byzantine Empire" rather than "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans", which is unlike virtually every other article on a country where their official names are presented at the top. As with most other things that look like inconsistencies on Wikipedia, this is apparently due to past consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Greatest Emperor in Byzantium?

Who takes the cake Justinian or Constantine? Would love to hear your thoughts. Lyleciardi (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that great military prowess isn't what makes someone truly great, and though Constantine (assuming you mean Constantine the Great and not one of the ten or so Constantines after him) and Justinian both led the Roman Empire in times of military success (Constantine as a general and Justinian as an administrator), truly great emperors would need to be defined by more than military success. For instance, we don't consider Hitler the greatest German leader even though Germany reached its greatest ever extent under his rule.

Justinian's military campaigns (led by generals such as Belisarius, Narses etc.) were most often undermanned. His reign left the previously full imperial treasury near empty, left Italy and Rome itself depopulated and in ruins and alienated the Barbarian Kingdoms in the West, most of which up until that point had been allies, or at least on good terms, with the empire.

I'm less familiar with Constantine the Great, but he was the single greatest reason that Diocletian's Tetrachy, which had ended the Crisis of the Third Century, collapsed. As can be gathered from any list of Roman emperors, the empire descended into regular civil wars again after his death.

I'd like to think that truly great emperors would be those who improved their empire or the rest of the world rather than leaving it in a worse condition than they found it. In this respect Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) would probably be the standard choice. Another noteworthy emperor would be Anastasius I Dicorus (491–518), who among other things stopped the trend of financial collapse that had been ongoing since the third century (for instance making it possible for the later Justinian to fund his invasion forces). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

[IPA] note is useful, relevant, common on articles; no reason to remove here

[IPA] phonemic pronunciation of foreign languages in a footnote is standard on many articles, complainant must not read them. Especially languages with historic and foreign alphabets; one person may personally find it "irrelevant" and "useless", I find other information "irrelevant and useless", my personal standard is not the standard. And useless to "readers"? As a READER I find [IPA] very useful and relevant when reading an article and wanting to know how to correctly pronounce foreign words as their were pronounced originally, especially the main title words. If you don't care about that and/or can't read [IPA] that does not make how the word was actually pronounced "irrelevant and useless"—don't read the footnote. "Byzantium" & "Roman Empire" happen to be words that were in use for 2,000+ years across many stages of Greek and Latin, spaining from Classical to Koine to Medieval (a.k.a. Byzantine) Greek. Just one basic transliteration of only Classical Ancient Greek would be misleading and flatout inaccurate regarding how the names were pronounced on the streets of Constantinople in the 5th century, 10th century, 15th century. Byzantine Roman Empire spanned multiple languages and multiple forms of those languages, autonyms evolved. The International Phonetic Alphabet also allows for people of any background to interpret correctly how a word was pronounced, vs. letters that can be interpreted in different ways. Again IPA is standard across many articles, a footnote of /IPA/ is not a new phenomenon, it is useful, relevant, helpful to those who actually do care about such things. And to a final point, transliteration does not constitute OR, that's a ridiculous point explicitly rejected on the WP:OR page (Translations and transcriptions NOT OR) for good reason, otherwise IPA could never be used unless someone wrote a book on transliterating one particular word to cite, all transliterations of words require such sources too, nonsensical. I don't know why this is even controversial, no good reason has been presented why a footnote containing simple IPA transcriptions of the pronunciation of the Greek + Latin is wrong, whereas it is standard across many other articles nowadays. Making adjustments is fine (as I did in response to the first initial rude deletion on silly grounds), but just flatout deleting everything removing historical pronunciations the way it was done is not just rude but makes no logical sense and harms the quality of the article as a reference source. As a user of Wikipedia I find IPA transcriptions on articles very useful for historical pronuncations of words; here should be no different. Inqvisitor (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Several things: First, about OR: phonetic transcription is not just transliteration, it's linguistic analysis. Claiming that a certain letter corresponded to [b] during one specific period, to [β] in another and then to [v] from a certain point onward is a non-trivial claim of linguistic fact, which can by no means be compared to simply rendering one script by means of another (which is what transliteration is). I'm not saying your transcriptions are wrong – at first glance they do seem knowledgeable and plausible, though I haven't scrutinized them in detail – but that's really not the issue. Such transcriptions would have to be sourced.

Second, about relevance: That lead sentence is explicitly (and only) introducing modern English terms, going to great pains to clarify that they are not the native names. Why then would we want to add information on the native pronunciation history of some name other than the ones we're talking about at that point? The name that may have been pronounced [byːd.d͡zán.ti.on] in Classical Greek was the name of a city, and never the name of the state this article is about. The name that would have been pronounced [ba.si.lěː.aː (tɔ̂ːn) r̥ɔː.mǎi̯.ɔːn] in Classical Greek isn't even the same name as the one you attached the footnote to (plus, the thing it denotes didn't even exist when Classical Greek was spoken, so that transcription is ahistoric anyway). So, if anything of this material (a small subset of it) might be relevant somewhere, it would be in the "nomenclature" section, not in that lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to question the inclusion of detailed discussion on the phonology of "Byzantion" since as the article specifies, the "Byzantines" cared little for the old name of the city and its connection to their empire is a modern invention. I would also question calling the use of Romania "less common". From sources it appears to have been the most common informal designation for the empire. As an example, people use the informal name "America" far more commonly than the formal name "United States of America". "Romania" appears frequently in the works of Byzantine historians and is attested as early as 582, remaining in constant use for centuries after that. Most importantly in regards to the discussion above, the stuff you've added is completely unsourced which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay fine I'm not interested in arguing, I moved it to the nomenclature section. Frankly there is a lot of redundancy between the opening paragraph and nomenclature paragraph repeating the same info. A lot of information could be cleaned up and merged between the two-and potentially moved to footnotes instead of all the Greek and Latin parentheticals in the main text which make the text unwieldy and difficult to read. That is the whole beauty of using a footnote instead of just adding more to the main text. In general the article could use a lot of cleaning up and improvement...

As for the theoretical issue of "linguistic analysis"? ALL translation and transliteration involves "linguistic analysis". Translation is far more "linguistic analysis" than any form of transliteration; a translator is making a subjective original personal analysis of what a word means in the source language and then personally thinking up a word he or she believes is its approximate equivalent in another language, again based entirely on subjective and original analysis. Wikipedia:OR states explicitly that not just transcription but translation does not constitute original research. All translation and transliteration involve a degree of "original" knowledge by the editor. By your standard ALL transliteration on Wiki, whether Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, Phoenician, or IPA, is OR and must be deleted from every article, unless someone published an academic book or a scholarly article on how to specifically translate/transliterate that one particular word to cite as source...which is obviously an insane and unreasonable standard. This is especially the case for "dead" historical languages of which there are no native speakers. We have no recordings of how Classical Greek or Classical Latin (or e.g. Biblical Hebrew or Punic) were actually spoken, the information used for those transcriptions is based purely on subjective "linguistic analysis"; their entire articles would have to be deleted. Nobody can be trusted as a 100% verifiable source.

Someone who speaks Russian cannot provide IPA/transliteration of Cyrillic for English Wiki or vice versa without "original" "linguistic analysis"-and there are subjective personal analysis calls to make since the two alphabets do not line up, sounds have to be approximated like /дж/ /dzh/ is oft used to approximate English /j/ in e.g. a name like "John" as Джон, that's an attempt to render one script to another. A subjective personal linguistic analysis call. Russian simply lacks a sound for English [h], often substituted by /г/ /g/, "Garry Potter" for "Harry Potter". All of that is "original research" or unsourced according to this other person. So knowing 2 languages and 2 alphabets does not allow one to make a translation or even transliteration between the 2, you need an official academic publication to do the translation/transliteration for you to cite... Apply that universally, thousands of articles need to have such personal "unsourced" translations and transliterations of words deleted.

But thus the advantages of IPA, which is an alphabet like any other. Its universal application for transliteration for academic/reference purposes only makes it sui generis. It does not purport to specifically "correspond" to any particular letter in any other alphabet, but to be able to approximate a sound on universal level so as to be understood by all, as opposed to basic transliteration from Greek to Latin letters which can be interpreted a million different ways based on English phonology or Latin or any other language using the Latin alphabet. You complained on one hand there is too much "irrelevant" info and "This is not an article about the history of Greek and Latin pronunciation" yet by your standard then in order to not be OR, you would demand I turn a brief pronunciation footnote into a sourced treatise on the evolution of Greek phonology? No, if people want those details they would indeed go to that "article about the history of Greek and Latin pronunciation"...

Your critique would apply to EVERY use of IPA, even English-speakers making English IPA boxes, it all involves original personal "linguistic analysis". Information on Wikipedia does not always have be to attributed but attributable. English-speakers who know both the English alphabet and IPA alphabet don't need to provide a source on how both alphabets are pronounced to people who don't know one or the other to provide an IPA transcription. If you had to, you can go to an original source and look up and verify that they are accurate. So anyone familiar with the Greek language and its phonological history would be familiar with the weakening of Ancient [B] to [β] to [v]; no scholar would question that. Anyone who knows basic spoken Greek and sees Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων would say that if you had to choose just one English alphabet rendering, should be better be transliterated into English with /v/ Vasileía; that wasn't a change that happened overnight in Modern Greek, Byzantine Greek was closer to Modern Greek phonology than Ancient.

(Again I tried to keep the pronunciation notes as succinct as possible thus limited to the 3 main major stages, not purporting to cover exact dialects for every time/place in history. Byzantium was founded c. 660 BC, part of the Classical Græco-Roman world the "Eastern" half of the Roman Empire, of which it became a capital Constantinople in AD 330, then following the fall of the "Western" half, the "Byzantine" Greek-speaking Roman Empire lasted another 1,000 years till fall of Constantinople in AD 1453. That's over 2,000 years of possible local dialectal variance. In the "Eastern" Greek-speaking half of the original Hellenophilic Classical Roman Empire, Classical Attic Greek would have been taught to educated Romans (East and West) in schools as proper Greek, even though Koine Greek had become the most widely spoken variant since the Hellenistic period. Just as Classical Latin would be taught in schools as proper Latin rather than local Vulgar Latin dialects, even centuries after Classical Latin ceased be to the common spoken form. ("Koine" and "Vulgar" both meaning roughly the same thing.) Koine Greek is a late for of Ancient Greek that evolved out of Classical Attic Greek and eventually became the standard in Late Antiquity; likewise Justinian in the mid-6th century AD was the last Roman Emperor who was a native speaker of Latin. Only by the 7th century did "Classical" Græco-Roman influence fade for good, from 8th to 15th centuries distinct Medieval "Byzantine Greek" evolved, closer to Modern Greek. Have to draw a line somewhere; 'tis contradictory to say too long, too much info and then also say it's not detailed and specific enough.)

Inqvisitor (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And to Ichthyovenator, you seriously reverted my edit on the basis that the "nomenclature section is long enough as is", because of my 2 tiny footnotes in the corner? Whereas what I did was reduce the size of the section, clean up a whole bunch of the main text, as I explicitly said cleaning up and condensing the section was my longer-term goal since it is too long, there is so much redundancy and unwieldly parentheticals of different languages and confused formats (including misformatted language) in the main text (which you brought back with your unwarranted revert). Nothing was "unsourced", already addressed that but sheesh it's like some folks here have never read a Wikipedia article on a foreign language subject. I didn't add any new Greek text, that's not apparently in dispute, so IPA? My degrees are in the Classical languages, I know IPA...just who is an authoritative source to provide IPA pronunciations then, only a living native Ancient/Byzantine Greek speaker (who also must know IPA)? Or an academic literally has to publish a scholarly book or journal article transliterating one or two specific words into IPA in order to be "sourced" (in which case thousands of Wiki articles need to be purged of "unsourced" translations and transliterations)...whatever, done here, but hard to believe you were not joking that you reverted my cleaning up of that messy text and blamed the nomenclature section being too long on a tiny footnote into which I moved some of that text...a move to the nomenclature section which was only made to please Fut. Perf. in the first place...whatever, I don't get into stupid ego edit wars, I don't like stupid arguments, this is not worth all the time and effort I've already wasted trying to improve this article...

Inqvisitor (talk)

On the tangential topical matter raised vis-à-vis "question the inclusion of detailed discussion on the phonology of Byzantion"...Byzantion (Βῡζᾰ́ντῐον, Latin Bȳzantion, later Latinized to Bȳzantium) is Ancient Greek name for a settlement believed to have been founded by Illyrians c. 660 BC. It is named after its legendary mythical founder Byzas, (gen. Byzantos; Βῡ́ζᾱς, Βῡ́ζᾰντος), a name of Illyrian origin. Byzas is a figure in Greek mythology, son of Poseidon, his name declines as Greek 3rd declension noun. The word Βῡζᾰ́ντῐον is fully Greek in form simply adding to the genitive root Byzant- the suffix -ῐον (-ion) akin to Latin suffix adding -ium. There is no reason to believe "Byzantine" Romans disliked the old name of the city, the connection is not a modern invention, it was certainly the original name of the tiny old settlement over which great Constantinople was built, they just didn't typically use that old name for themselves, it was re-named Κωνστᾰντῑνούπολῐς (Kōnstantīnoúpolis) in AD 330, "Byzantine" Roman Cōnstantīnopolis lived on another 1,123 years beyond the old small settlement of Byzantion and remained Constantinople another 4 centuries even under Ottoman rule until renamed Istanbul after 1923. French people of Lyon don't regularly call their city by ancient Roman settlement name Lugdunum. English people from the town of York don't typically refer to themselves by the ancient Roman settlement name Eboracum American New Yorkers don't often call themselves New Amsterdamers. Russian people of Volgograd, known as Stalingrad 1925-1961, don't care much to use the old name of the city Tsaritsyn 1589-1925...except many many more centuries passed in the case of small ancient settlement of Byzántion becoming massive mighty Kōnstantīnoúpolis.

Inqvisitor (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how wanting there to be a wider consensus to your additions (as is custom in wikipedia, especially on a page like this one which gets hijacked very frequently) warrants a reply this rude and reeking of a sense of superiority. I never said the Romans disliked the old city name, just that they didn't care much about it (which is evident, most Byzantine sources portray the city's history as beginning with Constantine the Great). This article is already massive (pushing 200,000+ bytes, Wikipedia standards dictate that articles should really be ~100,000 at most) and adding in honestly superfluous phonological information is not helping the article's problems. As for your points about not needing sources, I personally can't speak Byzantine Greek, and as a reader I don't trust unsourced material. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work, not original research, what is the reference for these pronounciations? "Random Wikipedia editor" isn't satisfying in this case. "Oh but it's fine in other articles"; no I would say it's a problem there too. Just because an issue is present elsewhere doesn't mean we should make the same issue present here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Byzatine empire" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Byzatine empire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some important leaders are left off the ‘notable emperors’ list

Why hello, earlier today I looked at the infobox for this article and saw a list of important emperors, and in my opinion a few very exeptional emperors were left out. For one Basil I, he was the founder of the Macodonian dynasty, and brought the ERE into a new golden age and his importance cant be overstated. Another to include would be Irene of Athens, she was also important being the one to first outlaw iconaclasm, plus she is argueably the only Empress regnant in Roman history which is rather impressive due to beliefs at the time. Finally, the last emperor to include on the list, would be Constantine IX. He was the emperor at the time of the east west schizm, and extraordinary important event which would send ripples through history for centuries, and not only that he actually rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchre after its destructive by the Fatimids and his building is the one that still stands today, very impressive. I could name others, but these are the main ones for me. Overall I firmly believe that we should add a few emperors to the infobox’s list, thanks for reading. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

About the proper page title

Academia use the name "Eastern Roman Empire" three times more often than the name "Byzantine Empire" in the titles of their serious publications. Anyone can easily verify this on any database. Please do check the page move history. It is embarrassing and a shame for us to have those disgusting and racism page-move history.

@Selfoe: please refer to the many discussion that have taken place on this talk page in regards to this. You can't go around moving pages out of the blue to satisfy your POV, especially without citing a single source. This page makes it abundantly clear that the Byzantines self-identified as Romans and that their empire was the same empire as the one founded by Augustus in 27 BC, just a later stage of it. "Byzantine Empire" continues to be the most commonly used term for it and is therefore what Wikipedia uses. "(Eastern) Roman Empire" looks incredible awkward. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: You don't go around claiming facts as someone's POV. Simply check the academic literature on any database for the usage of ERE and BE to see the fact yourself. ERE is the most common use not BE.

@Selfoe: You didn't provide any source when you moved the article (POV) and then thought it was appropriate to move an article of this magnitude before discussing it first???? Your argument isn't true BTW, a search on Google Scholar for instance gives "Eastern Roman" 20,100 hits and "Byzantine" 667,000 hits. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2020

(Eastern) Roman Empire → Byzantine Empire – No discussion, no consensus for unilateral move. Elizium23 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit this should have been discussed first; the consensus has always been that the page should be at "Byzantine Empire". It should be moved back immediately. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the reference and statistics for your consensus. Please also apologize to the whole community for your abusive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject and suggested that any admins reading summarily move it back and ban User:Selfoe. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Move back - I tried, but admin needed. Like this, the title breaks all rules. @Anthony Appleyard:. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs moving back, though the sentiment is admirable. At ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Byzantine_Empire_page_move GPinkerton (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What specific rules did the title "Eastern Roman" break? Did you seriously check modern academic literature? More than one million of articles and books mainly use "Eastern Roman Empire" to address the empire while only 0.3 million articles and books uses "Byzantine". To name a few：

Bury, John Bagnell. The Cambridge Medieval History: The Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453). Vol. 4. University Press, 1923.

Alcock, Susan E. "The reconfiguration of memory in the eastern Roman empire." Empires: perspectives from archaeology and history 122 (2001): 323-350.

Kalinowski, Angela V. Patterns of patronage, the politics and ideology of public building in the Eastern Roman Empire, 31 bce-600 ce. Diss. National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 1999.

Haldon, John. The empire that would not die: the paradox of eastern Roman survival, 640–740. Vol. 13. Harvard University Press, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The new version equals "Byzantine Empire" with "Imperium Romanum" is just making people laugh.

Selfoe, do any sources actually use "(Eastern) Roman Empire"? I doubt it. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible Name Change

This has been debated too many times before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why hello, in my eduacated opinion I believe that this article should be renamed from the ‘Byzantine’ Empire to the Eastern Roman Empire for multiple reasons. For one by all extensive purposes they are Roman, after emperor Theodosius I died, he left it in his will that the Roman empire be bisected into two equal halfs for his sons. That being the west (which would quickly fall to barbarians) and the east, what we know as Byzantium. Both considered themselves Romans, and considered eachother Romans so is it that far of a stretch to call Byzantium the eastern Roman empire? Second of all, did the city of Rome even matter at that point? By the time of Theodosius, the actual city of Rome had diminished in importance to the point where it wasn’t even considered the captial, with that honor going to Constantinople, the capital of Eastern Rome. And even in the west Rome wasn’t even the administrational center with THAT honor going to Ravenna. Plus even if you say they don’t count as Roman because they didn’t own Rome, well they actually did own Rome for a while. After Justinian’s reconquest they held on to Rome for another 200 years until 753 with the formation of the papal sates. Overall I think that the Byzantines were rightfully Roman, and that we should dignify that with a simple name change of this article.SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi SirFlemeingtonz, please read all the previous discussions on this above. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Byzantine Empire" is simply the most common name to be used as the article title. ERE is also accurate and that's why it's included in the article. The Byzantine Empire wasn't "rightfully Roman", it was literally the Roman Empire, that's a simple fact, not something that needs to be argued and justified. The article explains this, and then goes onto explain why it's come to be conceptualized as a distinct entity by modern historians, and how "Byzantine Empire" wasn't a real name, but an unofficial term used by historians to refer to the half of the Roman Empire that didn't fall. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallery

@SirFlemeingtonz: Per WP:GALLERY, we don't generally include generic image galleries. Galleries are used only when images are needed to depict a specific topic better than words are possibly able to, and there isn't sufficient space in the article to include all of the necessary images without organizing them into a gallery. In other words, the Byzantine Empire article isn't an appropriate location for a generalized collection of Byzantine-associated images. Images depicting art go into the most relevant article about art, images depicting architecture go into the most relevant article about architecture, images depicting technology go into the most relevant article about technology. We don't just dump them all into the parent article. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As usual, the reference to WP:GALLERY is badly misleading. Most articles on similar topics actually do have galleries of one sort or another. This uncaptioned one was not a very good gallery selection, but the objection should be to that, not the principle of having galleries - probably best as mini-galleries at intervals. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You must not have even read my comment. I didn't "reference" WP:GALLERY, I explained what it says. Nor did I state some "principle" that we are not to use galleries. I simply said galleries need to be used in accordance with WP:GALLERY. You're straightforwardly wrong, most articles on historical states do not have generalized image galleries, as this contravenes GALLERY rather straightforwardly. Art and architecture are obviously candidates for a gallery, though they should be placed in relevant sections of the relevant articles. Examples of this: Architecture does not include a generalized gallery of different types of architectures. It has some small galleries separated into specific sections. More specialized articles include larger, more specific galleries. Baroque contains numerous galleries showing different styles. Brutalist architecture uses a gallery to illustrate its style. Roman Empire doesn't have a generic image dump of "Roman" images, but Roman sculpture and Roman mosaic contain galleries. This isn't a "principle", it's the simple guidance on how galleries are used. If there's like one thing we're not supposed to use galleries for, it's generic image dumps. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please just read what WP:GALLERY ACTUALLY SAYS! Try Ottoman Empire, Seljuk Empire ..... Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only am I now convinced that you're not reading my words, but I'm now confused as to what point you're actually trying to convey. Ottoman Empire doesn't even have a generalized image gallery. Seljuk Empire does, in apparent contravention of WP:GALLERY. I'm not sure what you're arguing, because it doesn't appear that you're making any argument against anything I'm saying. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I must say, the extreme aggression and edit warring is a bit strange, Johnbod. I am simply trying to explain a policy to a new user in good faith in my capacity as an administrator. You're making aggressive accusations that I'm misrepresenting the policy, even though your arguments don't disagree with anything I'm saying, nor have you cited any part of the relevant policy that disagrees with my interpretation. I have invited you numerous times to continue this on my talk page, but you're more focused on aggressively deleting my comments. Again, if you want to discuss the specifics of WP:GALLERY, please drop by my talk page. I really don't understand what this "dispute" is about, I just feel like you're irrationally attacking me and I'm genuinely confused. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm the agressive one - glad that's clear. You call me a drunkard, then reinforce it by describing that as an "honest question" then try to retreat under the smokescreen of a wholly bogus "admin action". If this is continued anywhere else it will be at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page, you're more than welcome to reply there, or not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I apologize for inconveniencing you. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Roman is Roman, 'byzantine' ought to be banned from wikipedia articles as untruth

I have an interest in the Roman Empire, from Augustus to Constantine XI, I find it very hard to tolerate even looking at articles I want to read when they are absolutely infested with the nonsense word 'byzantine'. No one in the Roman Empire ever called themselves that and even in 1912, when Lemnos was liberated from Turk occupation by the Hellenic Navy, the islanders were still calling themselves Roman. I have heard that the few native people of Constantinople still call themselves Roman in the present day. So I would like to see the 'byzantine' word banned from general use in articles as an untrue term. Obviously still have the article explaining the word. I think history people in general nowadays consider it to be a rubbish word that is incorrect, and get the impression that it is perpetuated by the fact of people just getting into this history being told it is 'byzantine', when they have not yet learned more about the situation. Middle More Rider (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been debated to death; please read the archives. On Wikipedia, we do what the reliable literature does. The historical literature calls this thing the Byzantine Empire, for better or worse, so that's what we do. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, history is full of "rubbish words" that historians keep using because they are universally understood, and there are no alternatives without major issues. Try Celts for example. We follow WP:RS, not try to lead them. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to campaign for better, instead of accepting the worse, then end of story.

There is no issue in truth, correctness and accuracy, if something 'is', it 'is'. Middle More Rider (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't "campaign" for anything on Wikipedia. We follow what our sources do. That's the policy of this place. If you don't like it, go find some other website to write on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your hostility will not benefit Wikipedia. Also, I can refer those people who do care about this, to some Twitterstreams, those of 'Purpura' and '365 Constantinople Days' that show it is easy to constantly refer to the Roman Empire by the correct name, in all aspects of its history all year around, without ever calling it something it isn't Middle More Rider (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously correct that the inhabitants of the empire in question referred to themselves as Romans and to their empire as the Roman Empire. You are also correct in that this empire shared unbroken continuity in virtually every single aspect with the Roman Empire before it. All of these things are explained very well in the article. They are even explained in the very first paragraph: "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages" and ""Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire".

However, as explained before, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources do. The contents of the encyclopedia are not necessarily "truth" (what is objective truth?), but represent the current academic/popular consensus (if one exists) in regards to specific topics. The current consensus in regards to the name of the empire that was centered on Constantinople from the 4th to the 15th century is to refer to it as the Byzantine Empire, and thus Wikipedia follows suit. The Byzantines are not the only case of this happening; for instance, the Ancient Egyptians called their country Kemet, not "Egypt" (which is an exonym). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless OP is planning on writing this article for the Latin wikipedia this comment should be dismissed. Exonyms are pretty commonplace in Encyclopedias Alexandre8 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How is the decision made what the consensus and current academic thinking is? I see both arguments just curious what would be needed Elias (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There are several ways this can be determined. When I've suggested changing things like article titles, I've usually pointed to Google Ngram (which shows how often phrases occur in books over a certain timespan) and the number of hits in recent years on Google Scholar. You can also look at other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, and what terms they use. I'm sure there are other methods as well, but in this case all of them demonstrate that "Byzantine" remains widely used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should forgo reliable sources in favor of two Twitter accounts, one of which literally has the handle "@365Byzantine"? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As I did not say forgo reliable sources, no I am not. I said that it is an example, it is possible to continuously write about the Roman Empire without calling it something else. You picked out one word which is part of the web address, not the title of '365 Constantinople Days' and not the content of that twitterstream, why?????? Middle More Rider (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

~~I completly agree. Byzantine empire never existed, unfourtanley that's what is called mostly today. JoãoMolina99 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)~~ blocked sock Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - "that's what is called mostly today", and that's why we use it. Can we stop this pointless discussion? Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Official Name, The Roman Empire on the first line.

The official name of the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire I think this needs to be explained in the first line of the article, which is consistent with every other nation article:

Examples of the first lines of the wikipedia article pages:

·China (Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó), officially the People's Republic of China etc

· Mexico (Spanish: México [ˈmexiko] (About this soundlisten); Nahuan languages: Mēxihco), officially the United Mexican States etc

·Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia etc etc

This shouldn't be put somewhere down the page where many simply won't read. There is no sensible reason not to put the official name in the first line, which is the method used on all the other wikipedia nation's pages. It seems like similar arguments have been brought up by many, on the talk page in the past, yet only a tiny hang full of people with their own personal preference for the word Byzantine, are changing it for their own interest. This is not acceptable in sticking with facts and reasoning.

Also on a slightly sperate note, the argument that Byzantine is used by everyone over Roman Empire (Eastern) or Eastern Roman Empire, bares no truth. What proof is there that all use Byzantine in preference? Numerous books I've seen use the tern Roman Empire (Eastern) or Eastern Roman Empire, over the word Byzantine. 1 example is a text book in my hand currently, named SOSE - Medieval History by John Cantwell, on page 8, which contains a European map of 500 AD, uses the term Eastern Roman Empire rather than Byzantine Empire'. Not to mention on google search results show:

·Eastern Roman Empire brings up 126 mill articles,

·Roman Empire (Eastern) brings up 47.3 mill articles,

·Byzantine Empire brings up only 26.2 mill articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotle1991 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's kinda hard to miss "Roman Empire" since it is in bold text already. Your Google search statistics appear to be skewed; I can't reproduce them when I try myself. I think that maybe you forgot to search for the terms inside quotation marks, which means that the search for Eastern Roman Empire will include hits for terms such as "Eastern" "Eastern Roman" and "Roman Empire", which says nothing in regards to if "Eastern Roman Empire" is more commonly used than "Byzantine Empire". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ichthyovenator. I guess it depends what time and from where you put the google search in. Sometimes it may vary, depending on what country you're in I'm guessing?

So I've redone it with the quotation marks, like you correctly pointed out I should, in google.

- Eastern Roman Empire: 90,100,000 results

- Roman Empire(East): 67,100,000 results

- Byzantine Empire: 27,200,000 results

The results are still similar. I think the issue, many of us are having that it on the first line, it says (the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium), which sounds as if Byzantine Empire was actually it's name, and the other names were just nicknames. Where as if they said, (the Roman Empire also referred to as Byzantine Empire), or maybe: (The Byzantine Empire, which was officially known as the Roman Empire) etc. it would be more clear, as the opening line would be more factual. It's on the 2nd paragraph, yet many, if not most don't read down that far, that's why there's no reason it should be on the first line.Aristotle1991 (talk)

This has all been debated to death before. Just to add one detail that's been discussed slightly less than the rest: there's no sense in calling anything an "official" name when it comes to the Byzantine Empire. There were no such things as "official" names of pretty much anything. An official name is one that is explicitly and formally defined by an act of legislation, with a claim to unique validity, for example when the name of a state is explicitly defined in its constitution. The Byzantines had no notion of defining names "officially" like that, and "βασιλεία Ρωμαίων" (or "η των Ρωμαίων βασιλεία") was only one amonɡ several synonymous phrases they used to describe their state ("ηγεμονία Ρωμαίων" or "η των Ρωμαίων αρχή" being others). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's awkward logic you're using? They obviously didn't have a constitution back than, however the name they called their country, yes would obviously count as their actual real, or official name. They called it the Roman Empire, because that was their name. The other ones you brought up, were just nicknames.

And yes, it's been debated to death in the talk page, because a lot of people, find it completely incorrect, that the article page is named after a nickname, which to top it off, was invented well after the fall of the empire. And it's gotten silly to the point of, we can't even be mention the empire's real name in the first line. And this discussion will keep being brought up by users, who scratching their heads at this, but a select few, clearly want to put their own personal preference or taste of names, over the facts and the rest of the users.Aristotle1991 (talk)

Mehmet the Conquerors Medallion as Byzantine Emperor

There is a medallion of Mehmet 2. from Italy, indicating him as the Emperor of Byzantine.

https://www.medievalists.net/2012/04/a-sultan-of-paradox-mehmed-the-conqueror-as-a-patron-of-the-arts/

The term of Byzantine Empire should be used before 16. century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkenteron (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. We've been accepting the claim that Hieronymus Wolf was the first to use the term "Byzantine Empire" as a matter of course for years, without, it seems, ever have had a reliable secondary source confirming that. Searching around a bit, it appears there are indeed quite a few mentions of "Byzantine empire" or "Byzantine emperor" in western (Latin) sources substantially predating him. If Wolf's usage was new in some sense, we'll need some sourcing explaining in what way it was new. Unfortunately we can't just compile those earlier mentions in the article to correct the claim, without committing WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently Ferdinand I of Naples (1423–1494), recognizing the Ottoman ruler, commissioned the two medals minted in his name, one with "Asie et Gretie imperator", the other with "Bizantii imperator". in Viallon, Marie (15 October 2011). "La lettre à Mehmet II ou le loup et l'agneau". Cahiers d’études italiennes (in French) (13): 129–139. doi:10.4000/cei.81. ISSN 1770-9571. Many similar medals discussed here: RABY, J. (1987). "Pride and Prejudice: Mehmed the Conqueror and the Italian Portrait Medal". Studies in the History of Art. 21: 171–194. ISSN 0091-7338. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus (1436–1506) uses the expression "Bizantii Imperator" (Emperor of Bizantium) to refer to Baldwin I, Latin Emperor, as early as 1498 [12]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I found a couple similar instances from the early 16th century (on Google Books, which doesn't of course go much further back, so no idea how common this might have been in earlier sources). Still, there are of course plenty of ostensibly reliable sources making that claim about Wolf being the first, so it will be hard to get rid of. I haven't yet found any secondary source that somehow debunks (or even just discusses or relativizes) that claim; they all just seem to restate it as a matter of course. The most I've found was one source stating that Wolf was "among the first" rather than "*the* first". This book [13] from 2016 might be among our best hopes to get to the bottom of this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FA review needed

This important FA was last reviewed in 2012, and some issues have crept in since then.

The article has grown from 13,000 words in 2015 to now over 15,000. That's a good chunk of prose that has not been vetted in a content review process, and the size raises the issue of WP:SIZE and appropriate use of summary style.
The top of the article is cluttered with infobox, navigational template, and images.
The article is cluttered with too many images, and complicated by MOS:SANDWICHing.
There is uncited text throughout.
There is considerable WP:OVERLINKing and a sea of blue.
See MOS:BADITALICS on proper nouns in non-English languages.
Portals could be added to a portal bar at the bottom.
There are considerable HarvRef errors.
There are incomplete citations, eg, "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2002.; Markham, "The Battle of Manzikert". and Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," p. 560.
There is an inconsistent citation style
There is overuse of however

These tools may be helpful:

Hopefully these issues can be tackled so that a WP:FAR is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: This was promoted way back in May 2001, making it our longest continuously-featured article. It'd thus be a damn shame if it got demoted, but I'll try to clean up whatever I can. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ok ... I can do some of the MOS issues once you are farther along. Ping me when ready? I have learned how to combine images to address sandwiching ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry for the delay, I've done what I could but this article is gigantic, with two citation needed tags and a few uncited paragraphs. There are still certain layout issues (why were science, law, and medicine in a single section, for instance?) that need to be rearranged, and the uncited paragraphs duly cited, but overall I think this is quite salvagable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, John M Wolfson; adding it to my To Do list to revisit as I find time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved a sub-heading to a more chronologically appropriate spot, in my opinion

I have moved the heading "Fall" to the section on the actual fall of Constantinople, as I believe the sections on the "Empire In Exile" and reconquest fit under "Decline"

The Crusader sack of Constantinople happened in 1204, but the capture of Constantinople and end of the Byzantine Empire did not happen until 1453. Therefore, I believe it is more fitting to place the sections on the 1200s and 1300s under "Decline" rather than "Fall".

Makes sense to me so I have made the change, but I just wanted to check this with the community ;) NAC73 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 12:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)NAC73 11:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Protection request

I would like to propose that this article shall be semi-protected due to many cases of vandalism and good faith edits lacking the quality.

Here are some examples:

These 6 bad faith/low quality edits have been done in the span of the last two weeks. The page needs to be constantly patrolled to prevent vandalism from being seen in a moderately important article. A semi-protection would fix most of these problems; thus I am suggesting one. Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Name suggestion

Yes, I know this has been discussed at length, but that's to be expected, right? We're intentionally putting in misinformation in the lede, and expecting the argument to go away.

I think there's certainly a middle ground between abandoning the Byzantine rubric completely and relitigating this over and over. In my opinion, a phrase identifying it as the Roman Empire *has* to be in the lede. Not as a continuing state, or as a Byzantine Empire that has other fun nicknames; the empire should be idenfitifed as Roman immediately, in the first paragraph.

To that end, I suggest something to the effect of:

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, is the historiographical name given to the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.

This makes it crystal clear that this is a fake name, while still allowing its use in the article. I'm sure there's better ways to phrase this though, but there's very few countries are are not immediately identified by their endonym in the last paragraph, and this is one of them.

More to the point, the Byzantine Empire isn't *just* an exonym. We have perfectly good translations for what the East Romans called themselves. We just choose not to use them.

At any rate, I think this change would be both minor and more reflective of both the research and reality. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What part of The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. doesn't already do what you suggest? In any event, the first sentence of the second paragraph discusses the endonym (and that can maybe be finagled into the first paragraph), and historiography is right in not considering it the exact same Roman Empire as in tempore Augusti, given that it didn't actually contain Rome and its culture was mainly Greek rather than Roman. (The Roman Empire itself had never formally abolished the Roman Republic, you know.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

John M Wolfson is incorrect - legally speaking it was the exact same empire, possession of Rome itself (a city the Byzantines held from the 6th to the 8th century) does not factor into that. That being said; I agree that the current text does a good job at explaining the historical situation. We have to use the term "Byzantine" since it is still used far more in reliable sources than "East/Eastern Roman". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and legally speaking, the Roman Republic never ended, with the Senate and consuls still being appointed well after Augustus. I wouldn't entirely be against "Eastern Roman Empire" (even though it's precluded since "Byzantine" is far more common), but calling it the Roman Empire is a bit misleading, even if that's how they viewed themselves at the time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, legality does not really matter, but the Byzantines maintaining Roman identity throughout their entire history is noteworthy; there is no clear dividing point when the Roman Empire "becomes" the Byzantine Empire (different researchers use different dates). I don't think the term "Roman Empire" is misleading; the cultural differences between the Rome of Augustus and the Byzantium of Alexios I Komnenos are not fundamentally greater than those of the Englands of Æthelstan and Elizabeth II, yet we recognize both of those as England.

This being said, I disagree with MeteorPhoenix that any change is necessary and I recognize that "Byzantine Empire" is a historiographically useful term, and since it is (and will probably remain for a long time) the WP:COMMONNAME here it should under no circumstances be replaced as the article title or downplayed. Since it often comes up as an alternative, it is also worth mentioning that the Byzantines probably would have disliked the term "Eastern Roman Empire" just as much as they would have disliked "Byzantine Empire", since it implicitly denies their claim as the sole Roman Empire (not just the east) and suggests that they were not also the continuation and heirs of the western empire (which they claimed to be as well). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing for the removal of the term Byzantine Empire. I'm arguing for the inclusion of some language that immediately and unambiguously identifies the state as *the* Roman Empire. I believe not doing so is misinformation, and a good example of that is the person you've replied to, who believes that the Byzantines aren't Roman. If my suggestion is awkward, perhaps a change in wording, something to the effect of "The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire as it continued in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages". Wording could be better, but I think specifically with the Byzantines, it becomes important to be careful, since there's people who deny them their romanity. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree that it should be abundantly clear that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire; I just don't see in what way this isn't already accomplished. "The Byzantine Empire ... was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages" does explicitly identify it as the later stage of the Roman Empire, not to mention the second paragraph which goes also goes into detail on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is now simpler than both my first edit and the older version, with the addition of their endonym, in line with most articles on ancient and modern states. Please feel free to discuss, and thank you for your feedback. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want my reply to you to be multiple paragraphs, so I won't copy/paste every single lede, but if you go into the articles of the Kingdom, Republic, Empire, Principate and Dominate, you won't find the word "continuation" anywhere. It states what it is: a stage of the Roman civilisation. To treat the Byzantine period differently from everything else, particularly the Principate and the Dominate, implies that it's something of a different nature, but it's not. This is the wording the article on the Principate has: "The Principate is the name sometimes given to the first period of the Roman Empire from the beginning of the reign of Augustus in 27 BC to the end of the Crisis of the Third Century in AD 284, after which it evolved into the so-called Dominate.[1]". You could very easily adapt this to the Byzantines. Or, if we're really intent on the current iteration, something to the effect of "The Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire as it continued in its eastern provinces, when its capital city was Constantinople". This is a small quibble, I recognise, but not only does it gets us closer to the truth (that this really should be part of the Roman Empire article to begin with), but it reflects current research; where the name "Byzantine Empire" is used, with profuse apologies and caveats, and a liberal use of the terms "Roman", "Roman Empire" and "Romanía" throughout the text. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to everything that's been said, please don't start all over with that ugly use–mention mismatch of "The Byzantine Empire ... is the historiographical name ...". We've had that a hundred times too. No, the Byzantine Empire isn't a name. The Byzantine Empire was a thing. A thing isn't a name; a thing has a name. Names and the things they denote aren't the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect; and you'll have the argument a hundred times more, because it is incorrect, and anyone with a mild interest in the subject will notice. In any case; another possible wording is "The Byzantine Empire is the historiographical term for the Roman Empire etc". Is that less ugly? MeteorPhoenix (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No. You totally missed the point. The Byzantine Empire isn't a term either. "Byzantine Empire", in quotation marks, is a term. The Byzantine Empire is not a term, but a thing. Please do try to wrap your head around the use–mention distinction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article on the Roman Dominate opens with "The Dominate is the name sometimes given to the "despotic" later phase of imperial government, following the earlier period known as the "Principate", in the ancient Roman Empire", and the same for the Principate. How are these alright, but mine unacceptable? That said, I'm happy to work on the wording some more. The articles for the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire all follow a pattern that I think we could copy. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, the key policy on all article-naming matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

PS, on my way out, I notice I posted this exactly a year ago yesterday ":Exactly - "that's what is called mostly today", and that's why we use it. Can we stop this pointless discussion? Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)" (current top section). Obviously time to repeat! Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest changing the whole name; merely clarifying the term, on the same vein as the articles on the Roman principate and dominate. How does that breach the common name policy? MeteorPhoenix (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

MeteorPhoenix, please do not edit the leading section without reaching consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby I opened a discussion, received feedback, incorporated the suggested changes into a new edit, waited for the discussion to down, and posted it, with an edit summary explaining my steps. This is the whole point of the BRD cycle. Is there something specific in the edit that you object to? Because I'm happy to continue the discussion, but consensus can change, and I'm not breaking any Wikipedia rules that I'm aware of. I don't think appealing to local consensus is a good enough reason to revert my edit if you're not even going to make an argument against it. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus (above) for the changes you made. Paul August ☎ 11:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul August I'll state my arguments again: the articles for the rest of the stages of the Roman state (Kingdom, Republic, Empire, Principate, Dominate) don't read like different books, they read like different parts of the same story. Calling Byzantium a continuation of Rome is better than what's being said about them (Empire of the Greeks), but I think it's important if you're going to keep using that name to be as explicit as possible that this is, unambiguously and absolutely, just the Roman Empire. I think using an "is" statement, as opposed to "continuation" makes it more explicit.

My second argument is that the Byzantines are one of the few states (ancient or modern) on Wikipedia that don't have their endonym listed on the first line: Examples: The Roman Republic (Latin: Rēs pūblica Rōmāna [ˈreːs ˈpuːblika roːˈmaːna]),, The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum [ɪmˈpɛri.ũː roːˈmaːnũː]; Koinē Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, romanized: Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn), The Neo-Assyrian Empire (Assyrian cuneiform: Inscription mat Assur-ki for Assyria in the Rassam cylinder, 1st column, line 5.jpg mat Aš-šur KI, "Country of the city of god Aššur"; also phonetically Mat Assur (phonetical signs for Assyria).jpg mat Aš-šur)[a]. This puts this more in line with the rest of Wikipedia and the rest of the Roman series.

I am more than happy to have a discussion, to compromise, and to be wrong. But saying "consensus" and then making no further arguments doesn't seems very constructive to me. MeteorPhoenix (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the argument that the Byzantines are one of the few states without their endonym on the first line holds up. If Byzantium is the last stage of the Roman Empire (which it is), then it's not a seperate state. The Principate and Dominate, the two preceding stages, don't have any endonyms listed because they are, just like "Byzantine Empire" historiographical terms applied later. I disagree with the version you added in your edit because you removed the often used alternate terms "Byzantium" and "Eastern Roman Empire" and I don't believe the Greek-language endonym works in the first line. Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων means "Empire of the Romans" but the way you inserted it makes it seem like it's a direct translation of "Byzantine Empire". Because of the necessary context, I believe the native terms are best dealt with in the explanatory second paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator I think either way you slice it, this article breaches convention. If we're going to use the Principate and Dominate as examples (which I agree with), those articles are pretty explicit: "The Principate is the name sometimes given to the first period of the Roman Empire from the beginning of the reign of Augustus in 27 BC to the end of the Crisis of the Third Century in AD 284, after which it evolved into the so-called Dominate.[1]" and "The Dominate is the name sometimes given to the "despotic" later phase of imperial government, following the earlier period known as the "Principate", in the ancient Roman Empire. This phase is more often called the Tetrarchy[1] at least until 313 when the empire was reunited.[2]". In that case, following this convention, we would say: "The Byzantine Empire is the name sometimes given to the empire in Late Antiquity and the Middle ages", or some variation of that. @Fut.Perf. has issues with this terminology, so I'd be happy if they could share their opinion on this, but I think the Principate and Dominate better reflect the type of thing Byzantium is.

If instead we're going to treat it as something separate, then it absolutely should have its native name immediately following it, as the Neo-Assyrian Empire does, or the Achaemenid. Moreover, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire have their names listed, even if they're following the same civilisation. It just seems like an odd exception. And regarding using a native name directly after an exonym that doesn't really translate into it, that's fairly normal, I would say? Neo-Assyrian Empire doesn't directly translate into "Country of the city of god Aššur". Neither does Babyolonia translate into "māt Akkadī"; a term that translates into the Country of Akkad. Byzantine Empire doesn't translate into Empire of the Romans, but I don't think this is abnormal for this type of article. What it does do is help establish the romanity of the state, which is a problem Byzantium always struggles with.

On the matter of your edit, fair enough and thank you for letting me know. Would a variation of what I've written with those terms in be worth talking about? MeteorPhoenix (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Totally wrong information

Preceded by Roman Empire. Byzantine empire is exonym, Roman empire was officially. West and East never been separate states just was a administrate divisions of the same state like Tetrarchy. --2A02:587:440F:41B4:A00F:D2DE:CB66:2573 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors insist on keeping this non-existent country alive and use 395 as its "founding" date, they need to rename it to "Medieval Roman Empire". "Byzantine" is an abomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.130.106 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources (see WP:RS) - academia and scholars maintain the "Byzantine Empire" as a thing - thus we have to as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Stating official name of the aforementioned country

I propose you to change introduction sentence of this article, stating that it was officially callled Roman Empire.

This is a printworthy name since official names of countries was mentioned in other articles all the time.

Would you agree on doing this like I did? Here it is: [20] Eşcinellik insan fıtratına ters (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the issue is already explained at length in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"the adoption of Greek as the sole official language by Heraclius in the 7th century."

This is a claim that appears a couple of times in the article, which goes completely unsourced. Does anyone know where this idea comes from? I am unable to find anything of the sort in any contemporary sources, if there was any such edict or law that changed the language of the empire, you'd think it would be easy to find a reference.

The article on Heraclius specifically cites a source (The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology), which makes the same statement but has no footnote.

What does "Official language" even mean in this context? The language of law? We don't have any laws from the 7th Century, and Justinian's laws were in both Latin and Greek. Maybe the language on coins? Well, we keep seeing Latin phrases and script on coins well into the 7th and [8th] Century, so that can't be it.

The only thing I can find to support this is that Heraclius did indeed change his primary title from Augustus to Basileus (although Augustus was still used, and never fully abandoned). But this is a very different claim from "Heraclius made Greek the sole language".

I'd like to see if anyone can find some material (ideally primary sources) to support this claim, and if it can't be found this claim should be revised. --Marvelfannumber1 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, probably true but also assumed as that date due to imperial changes and the related territory loss of the Latin speaking West and Semetic East. Sources at the time, especially Greek ones, are apparently scant. Theophanes the confessor I believe is where we get most of our knowledge of Heraclius' reign (there is an analysis into his sources that I've yet to read fully that may will help identify primary sources^[1]). According to a modern scholar Dr Kaegi, a biography of Heraclius has never been written in English which might explain the challenge with this as a task.^[2]. Elias (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That Heraclius "changed the language" to Greek is a misconception, yes, that should be rooted out of these articles. Greek was already the official language (alongside Latin) and nothing Heraclius did to my knowledge removed the status of Latin. Starting to issue documents in Greek (which many emperors had done before) and assuming the title Basileus (already used colloquially for the emperors) does not really equate to adopting Greek as the sole official language. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the citation ^[3] I found on Languages of the Roman Empire you are correct -- Greek was spoken even with Augustus unofficially and by the reign of Tiberius efforts were made to reinstate Latin as the conquests of Greek cities had increased its influence on Rome (I presume from what was slaves educating the elites to now the general population already speaking it). Rochette references Juvenal who complained Rome was becoming a Greek city circa 118 CE ^[4]. He claims the tension existed because Latin was the language of conquest, prestige and the criteria of Romanitas. Rochette claims despite Roman conquests, Greek remained the official administrative language in the East up until Diocletian. Rochette references evidence that Greek was official state language as early as 397 when judges could sentence in Greek and Latin but that Latin was used at every one of the four levels distinguished in (mostly government) communications up to 439 in the West (but not the necessarily the East). He claims Justinian was the last emperor to try to impose Latin and return to bilateral monolingulism that was characteristic of the Republic and the Principate but unlike then by virtue of Constantinople being the new capital made Greek definitively official, as by then Latin was no longer understood and was a dead language.

Here's a thought now that I've looked into this: given language is used to distinguish the "Roman Empire" with the 15th century historiographic term "Byzantine Empire", it might be worth exploring this further if Wikipedia wishes to continue to propagate the scholars who claim the Byzantine Empire was a different empire. Elias (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure what more would need to be said in this article about this, the article is already massive. Language is not the only aspect used to distinguish "Byzantine" and Ancient Roman, and Wikipedia does not propagate the idea that the Byzantine Empire was a different empire - the first line explicitly says "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a great opening line. But if the terms remain, which I understand we need to leave it to the scholars to sort that out, the historiography needs to be called out otherwise a reader who does not know anything about the subject would assume that was the actual name. Elias (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/78864642.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Bump, Almyr L (2004). "Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (review)". The Journal of Military History. 68 (3): 949–950. doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0092. ISSN 1543-7795.
^ Bruno Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," translated by James Clackson, in A Companion to the Latin Language (Blackwell, 2011), p. 560.
^ "Internet History Sourcebooks". sourcebooks.fordham.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-26.

Opening sentence

I would like to suggest we start the article with “In modern historiography” similar to how the page for ancient rome does.

Even though the second paragraph does a great job explaining why the term Byzantine is used, the historiographic convention should be called out in the first sentence. The first sentence is excellently written otherwise but because this is not called out, is misleading -- someone who would not know anything about the subject can easily think this was the name of what it was called and not one invented by historians, implying it was a different thing all together which is at the heart of the recurring disputes on this talk page.

The proposed revisions would look like this, with emphasis on the change:

In modern historiography the Byzantine Empire, also called the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, refers to the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.

(For comparison, this is how it is currently written where you can see how big a difference it makes: The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. )

Elias (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Still a use–mention mismatch, and still useless pedantry, so in a word, no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

New lede proposal

I propose to change the first two paragraphs to this:

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the medieval Roman Empire (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, romanized: Basileía Rhōmaíōn) as it continued in its eastern provinces, when its capital city was Constantinople. It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe.

"Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire or Romania (Medieval Greek: Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as Romans (Medieval Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi) – a term which Greeks continued to use for themselves into Ottoman times. Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, some modern historians distinguish Byzantium from its earlier incarnation because it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

These are some of the main objections I've seen in the Talk page for years:

1. @Fut.Perf usually has issues with the use-mention mismatch, and this wording avoids that completely.

2. @Ichthyovenator and @Johnbod usually have issues with WP:COMMONNAME, and this doesn't breach that. The Byzantine Empire is still the name being used.

3. @Ichthyovenator believes that the term Byzantine is useful, and certainly still widely used. This doesn't challenge that at all.

There are two major changes I'd be proposing. The first was changing "continuation" to "was". I think continuation is a perfectly good term, but I also think calling something what it is is stronger, and more honest. We don't call the Dominate a continuation of the Roman Empire, and we don't call post-Marian Rome continuation of the Roman Republic. We are forced by convention to have different articles of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, so I think being crystal clear that this is just the Roman Empire going through the Middle Ages is worth emphasising.

The other component to the change is adding the endonym to the beginning. The objection to this change was that Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων wasn't a directly translation of the English term "Byzantine Empire". But I would point out that the articles on the Achaemenid Empire and the Neo-Assyrian Empire have these endonyms, even if they're not direct translations of the term. In any case, I've copied the format of the Sasanian Empire where the endonym is placed after the real term, not the main one.

I don't expect to get immediate consensus (or maybe, no consensus at all), but I please ask that you read this in good faith. I think it's a good balance between current academia (where the term Byzantine is still used, but with a myriad of caveats and apologies, and the full understanding that this is simply the medieval Roman Empire) and the fact that Byzantine is still the most used term in the field. 132.181.223.118 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Medieval Roman Empire is what I've seen a community of people on the internet have agreed to as a solution to replace the term Byzantine Empire (manifesto here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/RomeNotByzantium/about). Historians agree the term Byzantine is problematic but I've never come across anything with historians saying this is the preferred new term even though the way you wrote it as different links (medieval and Roman Empire) is accurate and does not need a source to support it.

Personally, I think this is a positive edit. As subtle as it is, reduces the confusion. Elias (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, still doesn't work grammatically. You now have the "its" of "in its eastern provinces" grammatically referring back directly to "Byzantine Empire", the subject of the sentence. So you're saying the Byzantine Empire existed only in its own "eastern provinces"? (Huh, then what were the Byzantine Empire's western provinces, and how could it possibly "not exist" in those?) Same for the "its" of "its capital" – so you're saying there was a time when the capital of the Byzantine Empire was at Constantinople? (Really? And where, if you please, was the Byzantine Empire's capital at other times when it was not there?) – Like it or not, if we're going to explain the geographical extent of the Byzantine Empire and the location of its capital by way of an implicit comparison with the territory and capital of earlier Rome, then there's no way around mentioning Byzantium and Ancient Rome as two distinct referents, at least grammatically. Your proposed lead sentence doesn't do that, so it muddles things.

Needless to say, Wikipedia doesn't care about what some "community of people on the internet" think and about their "manifestos". And it's simply not true that modern historiography uses the term "Byzantine" only "with a myriad of caveats and apologies" or that historians agree it's "problematic". They don't. Experts on Byzantium continue to use the term as a matter of course.

Remind me again, what problem was this new proposal supposed to solve? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In which case, the simplest solution would be: "The Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, romanized: Basileía Rhōmaíōn)". Then it's geography and capital and be defined after. I recognise it's a short statement, but here's the first sentence for the Roman Empire article: "The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum [ɪmˈpɛri.ũː roːˈmaːnũː]; Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, translit. Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn) was the post-Republican period of ancient Rome". And that's it, no further elaboration needed. Obviously the rest of the paragraph would have to be worked on, but would you have objections to that on principle?

What the new proposal is meant to solve is this: we're giving this article special treatment that it doesn't deserve. If we must use an incorrect name, then let us be as crystal clear about what it is immediately. The Roman Dominate isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire; it is the Roman Empire. Post-Marian Rome isn't a continuation of the Roman Republic; it is the Roman Republic. The Byzantine Empire isn't a continuation of the Roman Empire; it's just simply the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Why are we overcomplicating it?

In addition to the medievalist article @Elias shared, I would link Is It Time to De-Colonize the Terms "Byzantine" and "Byzantium"?, where Elizabeth Bolman (Case Western Reserve University), Anthony Kaldellis (Ohio State University), Leonora Neville (University of Wisconsin) and Alexander Tudorie (St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) all argue that the term "Byzantium" should be abandoned, and some ways of doing it. On the subject of Kaldellis, here's a short excerpt from the Preface of Romanland: "We have to come to terms with the fact that the Byzantines were what they claimed to be, Romans [...] There is now simply no theoretical justification left for outright denying the ethnicity of a society and imposing upon it an incoherent medley of indented alternatives to accompany the invented label ("Byzantium") that we have also foisted upon it". This is not original research or pedantry; this is trying to get this article into line with what the experts on the field are saying and publishing.

I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing to change the name of the empire, per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm arguing that, given that we have to use the name, we should do a better job of representing current research. 125.239.16.24 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's true and a good point: Byzantine Italy was until the 11th century. A solid reason why Eastern Roman Empire is also a confusing term.

I'm just voicing support on the proposal but not willing to debate this as we will go in circles. For an explanation of the politics of the term Byzantine and how there is change happening, I suggest you and anyone else interested in the topic get some popcorn and listen to Leonora Neville and Anthony Kaldellis on a great podcast that covers why Byzantine is being pushed by some people (and will give you an entire new perspective on the renaissance). ~~https://byzantiumandfriends.podbean.com/e/byzantine-gender-with-leonora-neville/.~~ https://www.medievalists.net/2021/02/abandon-rubric-byzantium-leonora-neville/ Elias (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing the Name to Eastern Roman Empire using historical precedents.

I'm want it to change to Eastern Roman Empire because the term 'Byzantine' did not come into popular use until after its fall. Hieronymus Wolf was a German historian who wrote a book in the 16th Century referring to the Romans as Byzantines and a century later, the King of France began an assembly of different texts from eastern Roman history, which built on top of Wolf's work. So that's why I believe it should be changed back to Eastern Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Historybufffanatic2005: 1) "Eastern Roman Empire" is just as much an invented name as "Byzantine Empire" is; to the Byzantines the empire was just the "Roman Empire". The idea of formally divided Western and Eastern Roman Empires is historiographical and the Romans themselves did not see it that way - calling it the "Eastern Roman Empire" undermines it as the true Roman Empire in much the same way as calling it the "Byzantine Empire" since it puts on a qualifier suggesting that it is not "as Roman" as the empire that came before it.

2) Wikipedia does not operate on absolute truth but on what reliable sources say. Everyone knows that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire and if they don't, it is immediately made clear with the very first line of the article ("was the continuation of the Roman Empire..."). Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to it as the Byzantine Empire, far more often than they call it the Eastern Roman Empire, so that is what Wikipedia does as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I for ERE, but I would say that the article lead does allready a good job of clarifying that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire. But it seems that editors still get triggered by the opening sentance. I get it its probably impossible to do what the lead as a whole allready does in the first sentance. I also get the arguments that Eastern Roman Empire is eaqually anachronistic, even though I would find it more descriptive, which probably is why so many people want to put it allread at the beginning in the foreground. I would argue that the issue cant be solved here on Wikipedia. It needs to be solved by historians. There has been the argument that Eastern Roman Empire is more often used in the literature, I want to add my quick result from Jstor an academic paper platform: Byzantine has more results. Scholars seem to use Byzantine Empire more often, and as long as that is the case the article has to stay as it is. Maybe the literature will change. PS: The use of Eastern Roman Empire might be also a case ofthe many non-native speaker on the english Wikipedia. Being my self a german native speaker, I must say I am also more used to Eastern Roman Empire (ERE). PPS: while I am a proponent of puting ERE in the foreground, I also have to add that even the academic field studying the ERE is called Byzantine studies. PPPS: I keep seeing mostly the same editors defending the established text. I recommend you to not having to defend the text all the time, that you add an inline note! Nsae Comp (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The term "Byzantine Empire" is a modern convention and was not used by its contemporaries. The populace referred to themselves as Romans. The empire was referred to as the "Roman Empire" following the demise of the Western Roman Empire. Not enough emphasis has been given to these points in the article. 46.31.112.214 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I've proposed a new article that details the foreign relations of the Byzantine empire: Draft:Foreign_relations_of_the_Byzantine_Empire

My motivation is to try to cut the size of several articles, primarily Greece-Turkey relations but also because in my research of the Göktürks, I found a lot of conflicting information on Wikipedia that discussed the same events.

Although there is a section on Byzantine diplomacy and the history details events, this could be a place for a more holistic and detailed view of how relations evolved. For example, the Göktürks thought the Byzantines were treacherous, but at the same time as they were negotiating, Justin was incapacitated and his regents were dealing with several other crisis's. Pulling this together on one article will give a whole different perspective to why events transpired the way they did.

I thought I would share this in case any one else thinks there is value to a page like this. Elias (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine empire and Greece

Byzantine empire was Greeκ empire.The Greek language and culture dominates and the most citizens have Greek origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.251.255 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire that became Greek speaking only and was Christian. Yes, modern Greeks derive their heritage from the Byzantine Empire but that does not make it a Greek empire. The term Greek was used to distance "Greeks" from their Roman heritage, by the father of western Europe Charlemagne and later by Adamantios Korais, which he did so as to get western European support and to break free from the control of the church that was dominated by the Turks. Elias (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Change of conventional long name in infobox

As the conventional long name in the infobox is usually used to state the formal and official name in the infobox, and the empire was called traditionally the "Roman Empire", we should change the conventional long name from "Byzantine Empire" to "Roman Empire". Suasufzeb (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this would just cause confusion. The infobox should stick to the current title and name, as supported by the overwhelming bulk of the content and sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think supressing the truth causes the most confusion, and it's so unfair and wrong for people starting out learning about the Roman Empire to have false knowledge inflicted upon them. And the inaccuracies, like "the fall of the Western Roman Empire" there was no such thing, territory was lost in the western region, there was only one Roman Empire. And "Preceded by Roman Empire" either a deliberate lie or written without the knowledge that it is untrue, the Roman Empire lasted from Augustus to Constantine XI, and in Trebizond until 1461, the rulers at Constantinople were also sovereigns, by their own law, over Trebizond, which they allowed the Komnenos family (and a few others) to rule autominously.

And the calling of Constantinople as 'byzantium', the Roman capital, Constantinople was (I don't know the exact precise amount) maybe 15 times bigger than the old city of Byzantium, so most of the land mass of Constantinople had never been Byzantium ever.

Middle More Rider (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't really cause confusion as it has been explained in the lead, Also, even if the term was in usage during the times of the empire (it wasn't), what matters about the conventional long name is that it marks official or formal usage for the state, not what it's referred to unofficially. Suasufzeb (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The B-word, suppression of education and knowledge

Why do the people in charge of Wikipedia allow it to be, in terms of the word, a haven of the Byzantine Far-Right, people absolutely obsessed with calling the Roman Empire a name it never was? I obviously have not surveyed millions of people, but it seems to the everyday person that the Roman Empire ended 'around the 400s', or if they have a bit more knowledge, 'Romulus Augustus was the last emperor'. All these people are being denied the chance to gain the education that the empire just carried on until 1453 in Constantinople and 1461 in Trebizond. (Also, if the B-Word did genuinely apply to the Roman Empire, that would include Trebizond). I dislike another denier term "the continuation of the Roman Empire" as if it had ended then someone else started it up again, no, it just "was", until 1453. People can research the B-Word, it came from westerners' anti-eastern racism, cultural appropriation and indentity theft and denial against the east. To a person who has studied the original use of the word, it is an offensive word, as well as suppressing knowledge and being just incorrect. I think the B-Word should be banned on Wikipedia in context of using it for the Roman Empire, with the exception of specific truthful usage referring to the city of Byzantium, pre-Constantinople. Because people used a bad word in the past, is not a valid reason for continuing to use a bad word - just use the correct word! Middle More Rider (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree but the consensus of scholars is still not there yet. That's why. Entrenched interests with academic chairs of Byzantine studies, the Christian Orthodox Church, and Greek nationalists prefer to keep it as Byzantine. Elias (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but truth should be above everything, anyone who can help put things right should be be doing so. On Hellenic people using the B-Word, that's another sad situation from the western prejudice, the 'great powers' saying they would only give military and political help to a new state of the Roman people, free of Turk occupation, if they identified themselves as a Hellenic nation, there is that famous situation in 1912 when the 'Hellenic' Navy freed Lemnos from Turk occupation and the islanders were still calling themselves Roman.

The historic truth should be the standard for a text book, physical or online.

My own situation, as a young teenager I loved reading about the ancient Roman Empire but in school we were taught that it ended in the 400s, then there was nothing, we never knew there was anything else to learn about, and this was before the internet. About 15 years later, 15 missed years of education, I discovered by chance at the back of a Roman coin book, that there was a later 'b.......e empire'.

I don't think that is a good enough situation for education.

Middle More Rider (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's complicated. It's a change in narrative for a lot of things. For example, there's a view that the West's origin of how it emerged from the dark ages is also rooted in demonising the Roman Empire that it also claims to be a successor to. The change is happening as we speak (ie, the move away from the European medieval era to global post-classical era) but it's still in progress. Since the 16th century and very relevant today, Russia's estranged relationship with the West is also politics driving this.

What I mean by this is Anthony Kaldellis's claim that Byzantine studies was created around the time of the Crimea war to replace the term "Empire of the Greeks" (which Charlamagne first coined in 800 CE) to prevent claims by Russia on unifying the Orthodox nations.

The issue is this debate cannot be won based on unpublished opinions like our own. To win this, you need to play Wikipedia's rules: find sources that support this change. Anthony Kaldellis latest work (which I refer above, and added in the nomenclature section of the article this year) I think has dropped an atomic bomb on Byzantine studies that I'm sure its still playing out and in the background of shrinking university budgets consolidating departments. It's only a matter of time, not if but when. Elias (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never read any of his books, you refer to Romanland? I checked on Google, it looks like a good book, thanks for mentioning him.

Middle More Rider (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Check Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 349–367. ISBN 9780884024842. Elias (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I found that online and also downloaded it.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We must call it whatever the scholarly consensus calls it. Paul August ☎ 01:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I watched an Orthodox webinar, with modern historians discussing this subject on YouTube this morning, it seems, as mentioned, historians are starting to side with the truth.

Does Wikipedia really want to be stuck in a stagnant lie while everybody else does what's right? And the origin of the ancient sources, mostly from when the Roman Empire existed, they all called the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the byzantine term is offensive (or the B-word if you prefer), however we should all know that it's a modern term and was not in official use during the empire's existence. The article should remain titled like that to let readers have an easier time finding the right article. Couldn't say the same about the conventional long name in the infobox, though. Suasufzeb (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

1204 vs Restored Empire

The page describes the Empire as a "continuation of the Roman Empire", which only works until 1204. So why is the Empire of Nicea with captured Constaninople treated as the legit succesor of rome despite 2 generations between 1204 and 1261 removing any kind of continuity it had with the original Empire? 2003:C0:F73D:9400:F43C:336B:C006:F9D8 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It was the same Roman Empire from Augustus to Constantine XI, over time they gained territory, lost some, regained some etc. I know the Roman Empire was never called 'byzantine empire', can't imagine it was called 'nicaean empire' ever at the time, just still the Roman Empire, at the time they may have eventually thought they'd never get Constantinople back, so there would be even more of an Anatolian Greekness to the Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the noble families and people of Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond were the exact same as for the pre-1204 empire. The Nicene emperors also had the continued approval and blessing of the ecumenical patriarchs. Rheskouporis (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

In addition to the previous notice from 21 November 2020, it seems that many maps aren't sourced:

File:ByzantineEmpire867AD4-en.svg
File:Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg
File:Byzantium-Angeloi.JPG
File:LatinEmpire2.png
File:1263 Mediterranean Sea.svg
File:Greek Asia Minor dialects.png
File:Justinian555AD.png
File:4KBYZ.gif
File:Byzantine Empire animated.gif (based on unsourced maps)
File:Roman Republic.gif
File:Tetrarchy map3.jpg (also, issue with colors: "The districts of Maximian and Galerius are impossible to tell apart in the legend; it is also impossible to relate the legend entries for the districts of Maximian, Galerius, and Diocletian to their respective territories in the map.")

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I am so done

Other major Wikipedias (like Spanish and Russian) set the official name as the Byzantine Empire as the (Eastern) Roman Empire, even the translations into Latin and Ancient Greek translate to Roman Empire. The Byzantines themselves called themselves Romans, and the term Byzantine wasn't coined until after the empire collapsed. Setting the official name to "Byzantine Empire" is incorrect as they never even unofficially referred to themselves as Byzantines. Rant over. StrawWord298944 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on what the consensus of modern English language sources calls something. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: what policy says that? Please link us to it and enlighten us. Elizium23 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITERIA: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No, that's wrong, it doesn't support what you wrote. You wrote "Wikipedia works on what the consensus of modern English language sources calls something." Please link to that policy which supports everything you wrote. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Gog appropriately summarised the policy. This absurd ill-informed argument about the name has been going on here for the last two decades. Don't feed it. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 01:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are there people on Wikipedia obsessed with perpetuating a lie?

It's not true consensus if incorrect Wikipedia articles are spreading this lie, then people who want to learn go to the obvious internet site of Wikipedia and are taught the lie, then tell other people about the lie, it does become a consensus, but Wikipedia's self perpetuated fake consensus. But out in the real world, people are spreading the truth, that the Roman Empire is the Roman Empire. Also some historians have had enough of the b-word, and are backing truth instead.

Middle More Rider (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do so enjoy the way you make slow-moving Historiographical changes sound like an underground resistance movement on par with the one that resisted the Nazis. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just another web-based conspiracy theory - although quite an esoteric one. The long term historical developments resulting in the complex morphing of the Roman Empire into what's called for legitimate scholarly convenience the Byzantine Empire (although well studied and written about) is both a "surprise" and doesn't appeal to the simplicities of the internet. The only explanation (rather than a lack of previous knowledge and current understanding) is that the "truth" must have been hidden from them and it has to be "exposed". DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a 100% historical fact, that the Roman Empire existed from Augustus to Constantine XI in Constantinople and David in Trebizond, they called their country the Roman Empire and also Romania (before Walachia took the name Romania), the state existed continuously and rule passed from emperor to emperor. The royal family at Constantinople always considered Trebizond as their territory, so the Megas Komnenos at Trebizond were Romans ruling Romans and were descended from Alexios I at Constantinople, so already royal family.

Beyond the fall of Trebizond, Roman citizens under Turk occupation were still calling themselves Roman. Famously up until 1912 on Chios, as the hellenic state navy found out when they freed the island from Turk occupation, the people were still calling themselves Roman.

The imposter 'roman empire' that would be the Papal-Germanic empire of Charlemaine etc., which turned into Germans in Germany (before unified modern Germany) calling themselves 'roman emperor'.

If people want to not call something the Roman Empire it should be the imposter 'roman empire', not the real Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

When you start throwing around phrases like "100% historical fact" and "Papal-Germanic empire" I am less inclined to take you seriously than I am to the average 4chan conspiracy theory. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You can keep denying or research the facts. Even the wikipedia article does not deny what the western empire was, started with the pope crowning Charlemain, then eventually "In a decree following the Diet of Cologne in 1512, the name was changed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" and various other stuff about it having become German.

Even wikipedia the haven of lies (as far as the Roman Empire) is not siding with lies on that.

Middle More Rider (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have researched the facts. Your argument is ridiculous and that's why it's not being taken seriously. Byzantine Empire is a historiographical invention, sure. That doesn't make it "untrue". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a true name that existed as a lie, but it is a lie. I won't join myself with the lie that was invented centuries ago and should have been forgotten centuries ago, I will stick with the truth. The lie doesn't effect me, but teaching it to other people, beginers to Roman Empire history, as fact is wrong. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a place of facts.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Middle More Rider: Continually asserting that it is a lie will do nothing. If you can prove that a majority of high-quality, non-fringe, reliable scholars view the Byzantine Empire as a "lie", rather than a useful historiographical separation, I will be the first to fold the contents of this article into the Roman Empire article. You can't. So we won't. Talk page rants will not affect this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

People interested in this situation might like to see this youtube video and read the comments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN9sg2XKuuo

Those of us who prefer the truth are not alone.

Middle More Rider (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Augustus said he restored the Roman Republic of which he was merely first citizen - the Principate being an imposter Roman Republic. That means the evil Papal-Germanic empire should really be called the imposter imposter Roman Republic. No? DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023 (2)

This edit request to Byzantine Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under government and bureaucracy section:

"As result of the different Orthodox and Hellenistic political systems philosophies, from Justinian onwards, an administrative simplification was given way for the emperor's easier management of the state as the sole administrator and lawgiver of the sacred Oikoumene."

Should be:

"As a result of the different Orthodox and Hellenistic political system philosophies, from Justinian onwards an administrative simplification was given way for the emperor's easier management of the state as the sole administrator and lawgiver of the sacred Oikoumene." Corypratto (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Done –small jars tc 10:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither version of this sentence makes any sense... "was given way" isn't English? Furius (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy procedural close. No reason for move has been given that even pretends to address the kilobytes of previous discussion about this issue, which has reaffirmed "Byzantine Empire" every single time. At best, this is going to be a waste of time, and at worst, another round of acrimonious debate. No such user (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire → Eastern Roman Empire – See reasons in other discussions in this talk page איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to provide a summary of your argument, please? Because there's a fair bit of discussion and it seems at times very emotional, using fringe conspiracy lingo, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There's been a consistent consensus not to move the page in previous discussions, so I don't find this persuasive. Furius (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe we shouldn't force the term "Byzantine Empire" for the Late Antiquity (which would be from around 284 AD to around 610/638/whatever. That material should be put into Later Roman Empire. The "Byzantine Empire" is in fact perceived as the analogy of the Frankish/West European Middle Ages. 89.24.101.226 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously. We've been over this a gazillion times, and bringing it up again and again is disruptive, so let's please speedy close this. "Byzantine Empire" is the WP:COMMONNAME, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] ttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/78864642.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[2] Bump, Almyr L (2004). "Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (review)". The Journal of Military History. 68 (3): 949–950. doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0092. ISSN 1543-7795.

[3] Bruno Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," translated by James Clackson, in A Companion to the Latin Language (Blackwell, 2011), p. 560.

[4] "Internet History Sourcebooks". sourcebooks.fordham.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-26.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]