Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Can we fix the "Nomenclature" section?

The following section has been completely garbled for the last few months. Can this be cleaned up?

The City of Constantinople (previously "Byzantium") and some monastic communities as early as the 7th century were called Byzantine in Greek sources but never for the state in a political sense.[ref] It was used more broadly after the empire's collapse by German Hieronymus Wolf's Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a book published by Anton Fugger.[ref] Wolf was a humanist who wanted to differentiate medieval Greek authors from ancient Greek authors.[ref] According to Anthony Kaldellis Athenian historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles, an author included in Wolf's 1562 edition, in the mid-15th century advocated a neo-Hellenic identity of the Romans and was the first to use the term in this way.[ref] The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), and Du Cange's Historia Byzantina in 1680 further popularised the use of "Byzantine" among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[ref] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in America, England and elsewhere in Europe with George Finlay's 1857 book greatly advancing it as it was the first English modern narrative to use the term[ref] Kaldellis claims the politics of the Crimean War, which included Greece's Megali Idea, is what fanned the change from the 8th century's "Empire of the Greeks" with the modern convention of "Byzantine Empire"[ref]

Come on folks, this is a Featured Article, we really shouldn't have ungrammatical gibberish like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It needs shortening too. Apart from poor writing, whoever did that also tied themselves in knots trying to cover too much. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran this text via Grammarly, and the grammar and writing are pretty good. Not a human, of course, but I guess that's the point. What's the ungrammatical gibberish that irks you?

As for conciseness, it depends on what we want to emphasise, and we can move the rest to a note. This paragraph's two axes are how Hieronymus Wolf invented it but it's now proven it was Laonikos Chalkokondyles (as in, who invented the term to refer to it as a state), and George Finlay, who popularised it in English. The first sentence and Kaldellis's work are the most recent scholarship I've encountered. Biz (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Biz, watch you don't change URLs when you run a tool like that - I think the ones in your edit are okay with the caps but IME some sites are less forgiving. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I get the impression that Grammarly's mostly trained on business emails etc and that text of this complexity is a bit beyond it. Anyway, here are the aspects that feel ungrammatical or 'off' to me:

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea").
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ..."

Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. I'm not sure we care about Fugger. It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. Furius (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestions. (Though most of these are style, no grammar.) Strike through means it's been implemented in the latest edit, otherwise with comments responding

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea"). --> Changed it to "and Greece's Megali Idea"
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ...
• "Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. --> It is but that's because relatively recent scholarly work that has challenged this. So it's a question of if we are ready to just accept the recent as well established and accepted or wait longer. If you read the note, it explain it. It is as follows: "Wolf has long been considered one of the founders of Byzantine studies in early modern Europe. However, Asaph Ben-Tov has recently argued that he likely did not come up with this title as he did not otherwise use it or discuss it in the preface. Anthony Kaldellis believes more research will confirm the term was already being used in Western medieval sources and Wolf only reluctantly used it on the orders of Anton Fugger."
• I'm not sure we care about Fugger. --> Refer to the above note
• It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. --> The reference included a quote. If you read the full paper it is better explained. I did a lot of work on the Greece-Ottoman relations article so it's obvious to me but I appreciate it's not to others so open to other ideas of rewriting this. As for the note, it is as follows: "The Crimean War had a profound—and unrecognized—impact by forging a new distinction between "Byzantine/Byzantium" and "Greek/Greece," in a context in which the "Empire of the Greeks" had become a politically toxic concept to the Great Powers of Europe. In response, European intellectuals increasingly began to lean on the conceptually adjacent and neutral term Byzantium in order to create a semantic bulwark between the acceptable national aspirations of the new Greek state, on the one hand, and its dangerous imperial fantasies and its (perceived) Russian patrons, on the other."

Biz (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect you are right, but tldr for Sunday night. One thing I'm sure of is that the section, given its inordinate length, is far too high up the section order. It should be below the history, and probably other sections. Very few of our readers will bwe looking for this. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

TL;DR I believe historiography should come first for any article on history.

It's complex politics masquerading as convenience why we call this era of Roman history a different name. Which is why it belongs at the top. That said, I do agree we should make it more concise.

For a first time reader of this history, it's framing perception a certain way and there is responsibility in doing that appropriately. For someone with an understanding of the history, it's expected this is explained well and prominently as it's an open secret this is a rebranding done by historians for reasons no one really understands. For someone who deeply understands the subject, presenting the latest scholarly evidence puts us ahead of any other resource and boosts Wikipedia's credibility.

Burying it goes against all three of these points. Biz (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonbod. It's tangential, almost a footnote, to the point of this article. Currently, it reads like a form of WP:FANCRUFT. It needs to be shortened to a few lines andcertainly put after the history section. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I read the first sentence of your re-write (tldr for the rest). "City" should not have a capital 'C'. "were called Byzantine" - no, it's an adjective. ("referred to as"/"described as" etc. Source uses "indicates a direct relation with"). Sentence is comma-less. DeCausa (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Some notes:

• The recent copyedit [1] didn't solve the grammatical reference problem – "it" still has no proper antecedent.
• The fact that the first sentence so easily loses sight of what its grammatical subject is, seems related to the fact that the whole section loses sight of what its topic is. A "nomenclature" section should answer the question "what names have been used for this empire". What the section does instead is discussing the question "where does name X come from". That's not the same thing. This distorted focus is clearly due to the fact that it's just this name that has attracted so much ideological obsession from certain Wikipedia editors, but it's out of proportion with the actual importance of the issue. The section needs to be not only shortened, but more generally be put into proper context.
• I agree about the points above regarding temporal ordering, the role of Fugger, etc. Fugger is irrelevant as long as we aren't actually making the point that some authors have suggested it was him who prompted the use of the term. But we aren't making that point, and won't be making it, because it's little more than speculation. That claim is now in a footnote, which is bad. I'm sure I've said this before: encyclopedia articles should never use explanative footnotes in the sense of "learned digressions" in the way some academic papers might do. In an encyclopedia, either something is important enough to be explained in the main text, or it isn't important at all and should be left out.
• The same thing about footnotes goes for the other "note" items splattered throughout the section, and for the statement about the "politics of the Crimean War" - the alleged relevance of the Crimean War remains completely opaque and unexplained within the main text and only becomes understood if you include the lengthy quote in the footnote.
• Going back to Wolf/Fugger etc., if the claim in the footnote is true that Wolf didn't "use or discuss" the term "B." in his Corpus, i.e. he used it only in its title, then the statement that it was "used more broadly" by him is patently false and needs to be reworded.
• Finally, the statement about "some monastic communities" in the first sentence makes no sense. This is a remarkably uninsightful summarizing of the source cited. What Kaldellis is actually explaining in that paper is that the term "Byzantine" might have been occasionally/rarely used in a cultural/political sense denoting an Eastern Roman as opposed to West Roman identity – the "monastic communities" are merely the example that happens to occur in the quotation he uses to illustrate this claim.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I made another revision. Responses below.

1. Ok. "It" is discussed again below.
2. That makes sense.
3. I've take Fugger out. And the footnote.
4. I've rewritten this sentence and removed this additional context. If the reader wants to read the reference, I've left the footnote which expands on it.
5. Agreed.
6. The paper by Theodoropoulos is not cited by Kaldellis as it was written after his paper initial claims in a different book and Theodoropoulos is responding specifically to Kaldellis's claim with evidence it was used long before in other contexts. The core argument of Kaldellis is that it was Western European's who were dealing with the Eastern question and the Great Game (my words not his). That said, I agree there is no need to give this so much airtime even though you mistake this as a summation of Kaldellis. I recommend reading Kaldellis's paper in full.

Biz (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't gone past the first sentence again. The erroneous capital C remains and "Although Byzantine was used for the City..., it would first be used for the state...". Come on! It's an adjective - talk about it as an adjective. That's just a horrible sentence. DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The one thing – the one essential piece of encyclopedic information – a section headed "nomenclature" in this article absolutely must explicitly say is that the word "Byzantine" is derived from the original urban settlement of Byzantium/Byzantion. It doesn't say it. The absolute fundamental piece of information the general reader should be given is absent. Instead, we have WP:FANCRUFT. DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Biz (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What "peanut gallery"? Explain. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Add: “…when its capital city was Constantinople. ‘Prior to that, the city of Constantinople had been called Byzantium, after which the empire was named, heralding the Ancient Greek tradition of the city.’ It survived the fall…” Aniskyr (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lightning speed gif

the map gif is once again too fast, we gotta slow it down Jake the brain (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, each slide is now visible for 1.5 seconds, let me know if its still too fast. NeimWiki (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you it works Jake the brain (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Hello, I am reading the page on the Byzantine Empire and I have a suggestion: The page should be renamed as the Eastern Roman Empire and the first sentence should be reformated as ”The Eastern Roman Empire, also referred to as the Byzantine Empire, was the official continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.”

I believe this edit is necessary because the term ’Byzantine Empire’ was invented by western scholars over 100 years AFTER the Fall of Constantinople and, as such, was never once used to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire at any point during it’s rule. The so-called ’Byzantines’ consistently and near-exclusively called themselves Romans, both before and after they adopted Greek as the principal state language in the 7th century. Even the capital city of Constantinople was officialy designated as Nova Roma, which literally translates to ’New Rome’ in Latin, by Emperor Constantine the Great, the first emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire himself. During this time, the city was also called the 'Second Rome', 'Eastern Rome', and Roma Constantinopolitana (Latin for 'Constantinopolitan Rome').

The scholars who created the term ’Byzantine Empire’ did so with the deliberate intent to distinguish the Eastern Roman Empire from the Roman Empire itself, in order to either discredit or to provide more legitimacy to one of the many countries who each claimed themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire (Such as the Tsardom of Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc).

They were largely unsuccessful in the latter part, but they were succesful in perpetrating a historical myth which persists today. And I believe that the offical Wikipedia page’s name, although not entirely incorrect, is only further enforcing that myth by using a term that was invented over a century after it’s fall to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire.

By using the term ’Byzantine Empire’ instead of the official name of the Eastern Roman Empire, it forces the reader to view the Eastern Roman Empire as completely separate from the entire history of the Roman Empire itself. I, and many others from what I’ve seen, believe that that is not just a blatant falsification of history, but also an uneducated myth which has embedded itself in the narrative of modern education, as well as being an insult to the legacy of the Roman Empire as a whole. Omnistar763 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can believe it, this is something editors have been fighting about for this page for twenty years: there are many pages of discussion on "Eastern Roman" versus "Byzantine" in the archives of this talk page. I would personally much prefer the former, to be clear, but I prefer peace and precision, especially with very mature articles like these that nonetheless presently need a lot of help. Remsense聊 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately on this, two wrongs make a right, even though in one example the citizens of Lemnos were still calling themselves Roman up to 1912, Anthony Kaldellis commented on it, saying "Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history finally absorbed and ended", as it was the point when the Hellenic Navy had freed the island from the Turk occupation, and the people would now become Hellenic themselves.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice

As part of the ongoing FAR, I will be substantially reducing the rather bloated history section (currently around 10,000 words); per WP:Summary style, most of the intricate information/excessive detail is already at History of the Byzantine Empire and not required in this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality addition

@Biz:, this edit is too poor quality to be left in:

1. The first sentence: going back to the 6th century BC is utterly unnecessary and too remote for this article. Why italicise "Rome"? That's a breach of the MOS as well as being meaningless.
2. The second sentence: so what? What's it got to do with this article?
3. The third sentence is nonsense. There was no "fusion" of cultures and certainly not language - and the sources don't say that. There were loans and influence. not fusion.
4. The above irrelevancies replaced what was an explanation of how Rome came to rule the Byzantine core: "The Roman Republic established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC; nevertheless, internal instabilities led to the institution of the Roman Empire." There was, in your version, no reference to Rome acquiring the East: you left behind an unexplained non-sequitur as a result: "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east". No prior mention of conquer. So, Latin was "fused" with greek because of Magna Graecia - the Greek east and its conquest by Rome was utterly irrelevant to Byzantine history was it? Nonsense.

I've reverted. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

1. The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date because it's a continuation and it's an invention by historians. This is an article, like all articles, that needs to be standalone given context to a subject. Not mentioning that it started as Rome, even if it's just a sentence, in background, is not exactly "utterly unnecessary". The italisation of Rome is because the term "Rome" refers to the state. Mary Beard in SPQR uses it like this (and yes, to refer to the Byzantine Empire)

2. The second sentence is based on the latest scholarship. Which it references. And which it appears you have not read in depth based on your summation. I put it in because of how the second paragraph talks about "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east" -- there is now evidence that this happened even earlier before and to a bigger extent. I mentioned this in my edit summary but it comes from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Roman_Empire#Transition_from_Republic_to_Empire. I was trying to align the pages as there is no reason for them different in some areas.

3. "Fusion" is putting it into my words because that's what we are meant to do, right?. The sources talk about how Greek and Latin evolved together (not just words); how Greek culture started Latin literature; and how Magna Gracia greatly influenced Rome.

4. I accept there needs to be more explanation of the conquest. I was planning on doing more edits and adding more scholarship. But I was also trying to simplify it -- do we need a blow by blow explanation or can we just say it expanded across the mediterrean? Also the first sentence talks about expansion outside of the Italian peninsula.

I want to just improve the article, help keep its featured article status, and not waste time here in Talk. I tagged you on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 but you did not say anything. I find your practice of reverting my edits not helpful to this process.

cc: This is what makes me hesitate from working directly on this article @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense Biz (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewriting tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

What you wrote, Biz, was irretrievable:

1. "The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date". A statement of the obvious which has zero bearing on starting with the 6th century BC. This just seems to be a rather crass way of repeating the whole Byzantine Empire = Roman empire obsession. This article absolutely does not need to be standalone. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is fundamental to the Wikipedia concept. Yes, obviously, there is a huge blurring of when Roman historiography becomes Byzantine historiography. But it's not in the 6th century BC.
2. So what? It's just irrelevant here.
3. No. You are not meant to make up words that are misleading. Look up the dictionary definition of "fusion" if you really have to. It's obviously not the right word. The central point is that you've been WP:UNDUE on the influence of Magna Graecia v the hellenistic east or even the Greek core.
4. You made no improvement. It wasn't very good in the first place but you made it worse. What can I say? If that section is to be improved thaen what was there before your edit is a better starting point.

I reverted you because your edit was irretrievable. That whole section is unnecessarily bloated. there's some succinct points that could be made, but none of them involve the 6th century BC, Magna Graecia or the fusion of Latin and Greek. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these points are unwarranted in some form: however, you do not need to make them in a tone which one would use to scold a misbehaving pet. We are presently attempting to save this article from being delisted, and it will be a learning experience that requires cooperation. If I'm not out of bounds, please be a bit more patient with issues you see. Remsense留 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've seen too many poor quality edits from this editor over the last couple of years to have that level of patience. Also, I don't accept that this article should be "saved" from de-listing. It's a country mile from being an FA and I see no reasonable prospect of it being a decent article - it's been a target of some rather crass internet-based POVs for many many years. It should be de-listed. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say a concerted FAR process is the best chance for it to be considerably improved, even if it ultimately fails? Remsense留 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase that's been in the political headlines here in the UK over the last few days: that would be a "a triumph of hope over experience". DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your perspective is well taken, you may be right. As you are likely aware, I lack the experience you do: as such, I will be trying to improve this article the best I can while it's got several other editors engaged. It would be cynical to characterize this as "learning the hard way"—I'm happy to attain experience either way, even if it's experience to induce pessimism. Remsense留 23:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your experience! It's a British(?) idiom meaning that some let optimism override realism. DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Aye—I wasn't taking your it as any slight on my optimism; I just wanted to make it clear that I see where you're coming from the best I can, having the comparatively little experience with big wikiprojects that I do. Anyway—back to trying to trim the History section. Remsense留 00:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. You can choose to make this a productive discussion @DeCausa or given your history, not. I hope you agree this article needs more than just reducing its word count to save it.

In this "early history" section:

1. There needs to be a sentence how it all started. It wasn't in a vacuum.

2. There needs to be an explanation how the Republic became an Empire. Having an emperor did not make it an empire, according to the sources.

3. There needs to be an explanation how Greek language took over this Latin-speaking Roman Empire, or rather at least an insight into the origin that gets expanded on later. It was in the DNA of the Roman Empire, according to the sources.

4. There needs to be an explanation of how Christianity took over the pagan Roman Empire. The sources suggest long before Constantine came about.

I believe those four components give the necessary background to what became the Byzantine Empire in the "history" section that does not resort to a blow-by-blow description and can explain things more thematically. Less words, higher quality. The loss of the western Roman Empire is important for the early history, as is the move of the capital, but not necessary for "background".

There also needs to be recent scholarship to give this section credibility. What I added that I believe deserves inclusion:

• Dickey: new research that talks about how Latin words were incorporated into Greek from the days of the Roman Kingdom and indisputably from the start of the Republic and not just the 3rd century CE which was the current understanding and opens up a whole new perception of how Greek was used
• Rochette: who talks about how Magna Gracia had a huge influence, how Greek was a main language of the Republic and early Empire
• Batstone: how the Romans "translated" the Greek culture and made it their own
• Beard (who along with Kaldellis that I am reading right now), give us the most recent academic scholarship and is the of the highest grade of sources per WP:HISTRS

I am open to how we write this. If we can start with the key points and useful sources, this can be a way that we can have a more productive FAR that we can collaborate on. If not, then we should accept the vote to FARC that occurred before they pulled me in. Biz (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can tell that you are reading Kaldellis, you seem to hint at his work and academic formula almost inherently in every discussion of this type. You omit previous observations of his work and are now formulating a specific narrative to rewrite the story again, introducing his very specific point of view as an example, guide even.

I hope you are aware that your continued insinuations to rewrite a history compatible with an implicitly biased narrative using the pretext of "recent historical sources" (being quite generous with their acceptance in the academic field) are not the concern of a limited group of editors. Pablo1355 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Now that you’ve got that off your chest, would you like to attempt to address what I’ve asked which is (a) key points needed for background and early history (b) sources that are recent, scholarly and/or that we should consider for a rewrite required for this FAR? Biz (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about your problematic handling of information conceived regarding Byzantinism in general. I do not share your reasons or concerns for said edition and I do not intend to collaborate where I consider there is a pattern of implicit intentions conveniently omitted, I only want to reaffirm a previously declared position in the face of a similar situation in the hope that it can finally cease. Pablo1355 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaffirming that you have nothing useful to contribute towards consensus. When you do, your constructive ideas on how to improve the article or sources to include will be most welcome. Until you do, I ask you to respectfully disengage. Biz (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Biz, yes that's your regular message: anyone who doesn't accept your narrow, WP:UNDUE agenda and poor writing should disengage. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's all calm down! Biz, I didn't think much of your changes, let's see what a new attempt looks like. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Magna Gracia and citizenship

@DeCausa reverted this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Empire&diff=1189592161&oldid=1189583605. I would like to explain my reasoning.

• Magna Gracia was a conquest at a similar time as the Hellenistic states so fits the existing sentence as they are all Greek city-states
• Rochette (2018) talks about how Magna Gracia ultimately influenced the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire's language and culture in the west. This compliments the point about how Greek was spoken in the east. They both tie to the larger point of how the Byzantine Empire became Greek speaking.
• Beard (2015) and Kaldellis (2023) both regard 212 as a epoc making moment for the Roman Empire. Beard says it was a different empire in all but name. Kaldellis believes this is when we start seeing the standardisation of belief systems that led to Christianity. Mentioning this is very relevant given we are talking about the periodisation of the Roman Empire and necessary background for the Byzantine Empire's "formation" (if I can call it that).

Have other people read the sources and come with a different opinion? Biz (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was Greek-speaking because it was based on the Hellenistic east. The influence of Magna Graecia on the early Roman Republic is at best a tenuous link and is certainly WP:UNDUE in comparison. To put it bluntly: the Byzantine Empire was not Greek speaking because of Magna Graecia. As far as the Edict of Caracalla is concerned, it's covered in the Roman Empire article which is the right place for it, not here. Otherwise, why stop there at shoehorning in pre-Byzantine Roman history into this article? DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was Greek speaking largely, but not entirely, because it was based in the Hellenistic east. Speaking in absolutes like that requires many sources.

The point I'm try to modify is that Greek language and culture was already well adopted in the Roman Empire, west and east. For different reasons. But let's get back to the edit because that's not what this is meant to be about.

What I wrote in the edit: "The empire was greatly influenced by Magna Graecia and the Hellenistic states".

• Batstone talks about how Greek shaped Roman identity, "turning Greek achievements into Roman possessions."
• The conquest of Magna Gracia brought an influx of educated slaves that led to everyone speaking Greek. A slave (Livius) as part of this started latin literature, by copying Greek plays. He adopted the Greek epic meter into the Latin Saturnian which in itself Batstone says the consensus is this was influenced in the 6th century by the Greeks. The Greek hexameter was brought into Latin language, etc
• Rochette (2018) talks about how it was the high cultural position of the Greek language that Hellenized the Romans.

I don't believe this minor inclusion in the context of Greek city states being conquered is WP:UNDUE.

Regarding citizenship

• Kaldellis who is a leading Byzantine scholar mentions it, as when the Roman Empire became a world.
• Beard, who is a leading Ancient Rome scholar, mentions it as when the classical Roman empire effectively ends, or at least when it changes to something else
• We are writing about a periodisation of Roman civilization and both these scholars identify with it being impactful.
• Knowing how the Romans used citizenship to build their empire, and then knowing two-thirds became citizens suddenly, gives the reader a lot more context on how a structural shift happened and into what we now call the Byzantine Empire.

Further, Kadellis points to 212 a turning point in the sense of where the idea of a pan-Roman religion of Empire started developing. He points out how Decius in 249 required all citizens to make a public sacrifice which in itself was not novel but post 212 was unprecedented. The certificate of compliance he required basically mobilised the imperial bureaucracy to enforce religious conformity.

We have many other facts in there that is "shoehorning in pre-Byzantine Roman history" like Pax Romana, Crisis of the Third Century, Aurelian, etc. Also weak on justification with the sources.

I believe this is more relevant for "background" than Pax Romana and the third century that currently are in the article shoehorning. Biz (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Map

Putting this here to remind myself to make a proper map to replace File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg. If anyone else has any comments on graphics that should stay, go, or possibly be remade, put them here! Remsense留 05:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Odd source

Can someone explain what's going on with the formatting of the Donald M. Nicol "The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453" source? I've never seen #if: code used in a sources section before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So! Yes—before we started working on it, it was its own template: {{The Last Centuries of Byzantium}}, which transcludes the code you see. I think it's because the book is available only regionally, so it tries to offer different sources based on which are available. Which is freaky and probably wrong, but I didn't want to deal with it while I was formatting the bibliography, so I just substituted it for the time being. Remsense留 07:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I can ping @Cplakidas, who can further advise. Remsense留 07:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the conditional coding from the ref; this was template wiring that should not have carried over into this page when it was substed. The conditions were for choosing between two editions; I've gone for the second edition of 1993, since the Harvard references pointing to it were also calling it "Nicol 1993". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside, if anyone's wondering why sources are being regularly removed, it's because this article really suffers from journal articles/books being cited once or very few times to support a single fact or facet. Not only does this encourage bloating, but it also makes it harder to assess WP:WEIGHT. Rewriting using only half a dozen authoritative sources, as we're currently doing, is a much better way to ensure the article isn't disproportionately focused on certain aspects. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an enormous bibliography on this article that seems much more for looks than actually helping one do further research on the topic, indeed. Remsense留 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Airship's rewrite

Well, I've begun my rewrite of the history section. As you can see, I'm currently using entries in the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, combined with Treadgold 1997 and Kaldellis 2023, because all three have chronological political narrative (when we reach the Justinian dynasty, I'll be able to use the Cambridge History too); Byzantine World 2010 is thematically organised.

At the moment, I'm focusing on concise prose and replacement of outdated/somewhat tangential sources (why were we using a 1922 book by H. G. Wells as the basis for a lot of the early history section?), but as we go on I anticipate moving a lot of detail on art/administration/literature/religion/Constantinople out of the history section and into their own subsections. Similarly, I think the debated content above could be placed in the Language/Society sections, as not directly political/narrative history related.

Hope the above works for everyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can help in moving the non-history-detail out of the section (apparently we don't have a society section. why don't we have a society section??) that would be much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I will take a crack at this task. Remsense留 04:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense. I'm thinking of sections like "Transition into an eastern Christian empire", where the philosophy/architecture should be dealt with more fully in their own subsections (feel free to create them if needed) and similar for the detail in the "12th-century Renaissance" section. See Roman Empire for a near-equivalent article—the "History" section is trimmed of any unnecessary fluff, and details of literature/religion/administrative reforms get their own section. If it's really important (Komnenian restoration, Byzantine iconoclasm, etc.) I'll include a sentence in the history section anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the additional roadmap! will be useful for me. Remsense留 04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice start. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: about your new intro paragraph about periodization at the top of the history section: I'm fine with that addition, but I'd recommend rewording slightly, avoiding phrases such as "when the Byzantine Empire came into existence" or "the foundation of the Byzantine Empire". These may still be perceived as implying that there was such a thing as a "foundation" moment or a "coming into existence" (even if we don't know when it was). As we all know, the reason we don't have a clear cutoff point is not just because the general historical periods of antiquity "overlap", but because there was a continuity of existence of the empire itself. So I'd go with phrases more like "there is no general consensus about a precise cutoff date" or something like that.

About your rewrite of the "early history" section: I'm not quite sure it's wise to start with Augustus as the "foundation of the Roman Empire" at this point. Among the few good things about the previous versions was the fact that they started (very briefly) with how the territories that were later to become Byzantium came to be conquered by Rome. But that makes it necessary to start from a good deal earlier than Augustus. For purposes of this background exposition, the relevant concept of "Roman empire" is actually not the concept of "empire"="polity headed by an emperor", but the other one, of "empire"="polity governing vast conquered lands". (I think it was this point that Elias was, ever so clumsily, trying to insert into the paragraph earlier.) It was the "Roman empire" in this second sense that had conquered the East and laid the foundations for the cultural east-west divisions within itself. In this context, the change from republican to autocratic government is not really of prime significance at this point of the narrative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks for your comments. The first paragraph is a really good point, and I shall incorporate it in. The second: I do actually agree with you, which is why I initially wrote those two paragraphs back in November. However, of the major sources, only Treadgold goes back that far, and I didn't really want paragraphs based on one author; I can have a go at summarizing the detail you outline above into a sentence or two, but for the WP:DUE concerns I'm reluctant to add more. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it would have to be more than one sentence similar to what we had ("Rome established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC"), and then one sentence or two somehow introducing the cultural division of Latin west and Greek east within the empire, that being the foundation for the later development of the Byzantine half. Of course we already have something like that up in the lead section, so we may want to consider how to keep duplication to the legitimate minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, I am unsure what you mean in the edit summary to this revision: Err? It's the same content as you reverted to but without reference to Augustus???

The cited source (Greatrez 2008) states "From the reign of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) onwards the whole Roman Empire fell under the rule of one man."

Your revised sentences of "In the latter stages of this period, the republic entered a period of constitutional crisis, out of which ultimately emerged a monarchical form of government under an emperor" are thus unsupported by the cited sources, which do not mention a constitutional crisis or a monarchical form of government.

As above, my reasoning is that if information is not mentioned in the Oxford Handbook, Treadgold 1997 or Kaldellis 2023, it is likely to be WP:UNDUE in a featured article's history section. As I said in the previous edit summary, if you do find a recent treatment of Byzantine history which describes the transition from Roman republic to empire in detail, it can certainly be added. Otherwise, for WP:WEIGHT reasons, it might be best to exclude superfluous details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So, to be clear, are saying that it's WP:UNDUE to state that Augustus's one person rule emerged out of the Crisis of the Roman Republic? DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, seeing as none of the full-length RS I have consulted have seen it necessary to mention, I do think it is DeCausa. I am not saying this in an effort to push an agenda or anything—I'm a historian of the Mongol empire, this is just an interesting diversion—but if I don't see it in WP:RS which address the entirety of Byzantine history, I don't think it should be included. If you do find such sources, that would be helpful. I'll leave this for others to weigh in, and start updating the Justinian dynasty section. My only goal is getting this article to a state where it is worthy of the bronze star. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced it down and taken it out. It's rather pedantic and it's WP:BLUE that that was how the Principate came about ... but I've taken it out anyway as I think this section should be cut down to the bare minimum anyway. The only point the needs to be noted is that by the time the Byzantine empire comes along the form of government was rule of the emperor and not a Republic (as the Republic was mentioned). the point I was making is that emphasising Augustus in that way is dated and inaccurate. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of this “history” narration, I support fact inclusion or exclusion if it is (or not) covered by Kaldellis or Treadgold in their narrative history. They are the only people who have written an academic narrative of the entire history in the last 30 years so we should try to match them. Biz (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why collections such as the Oxford Handbook (2008), Cambridge History (2009), or Oxford History (2002) shouldn't also be included. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question is if we value a single author narrative as having unique value. I figure spending 5+ years on a complete narrative you would make hard decisions on what to include as relevant, more so than a chapter author.

To be clear, I’m speaking only to the specific issue of how to decide what facts actually matter. But to your point, WP:HISTRS doesn’t make this distinction. Biz (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS is an essay and doesn't really mean anything. Personally, I think single author narratives have to be looked at more closely than general compendiums, but that's just me. I'm going to continue using the five works above as the standard yardstick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting critique of Treadgold. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1357541?seq=1 by Walter Kaegi. He calls the narrative dangerous. Biz (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no succeeded section that includes Roman Empire was succeeded by the Ottoman Empire?

There is no succeeded panel in the info box, Ottoman Empire literally succeeded the Roman Empire. I want it to be added. 78.175.48.122 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We decided to remove this recently. Refer to Talk:Byzantine Empire#Succeeded by the Ottomans? Biz (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason of removing that section was silly. It all started with the question: "The succeeded panel in the info box, seems generally wrong in claiming Byzantium was succeeded by the Ottomans, were there any other successors to Byzantine?".
And after a long discussion, it ended up with a statement: "Yes, it would probably be better without; it adds little except confusion, and it will not be readily improved in a way that does not generate yet more confusion."
But they had no doubt to add as many successors as possible into Ottoman Empire infobox, or let that section exists to this day. ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Western Roman Empire also a lot of successors listed, so I think it should be added, but not with just the Ottomans as successors. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ottomans are not showing as successors on the actual article. We want to reduce where we can what is in the info box as people constantly change it. On this same logic, we should reduce what is on Western Roman Empire.

Specifically, successors are fraught with issues: on what basis? Language, religion, geography? The Rum Millet is about as close as it gets to a successor for the people of the empire but that just opens up another can of worms. The politicisation of successor states makes this just a headache we don't need. Biz (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Listing successor states is useful for people researching the history of a region and what comes next in the chronology. We should try to list all geographic successors, and if the Byzantines reconquer a region and then are reconquered again by a different polity (eg First and Second Bulgarian Empire) then both successors should be listed. If you want to keep the list concise then you should only list the most influential and historically important (more than 1 though). It should only list independent polities (so not the Rum Millet as they are included within the Ottoman Empire).

If you still think those shouldn't be listed at least list the legal successors (although the right of conquest was a thing then), like the Despotate of the Morea, Empire of Trebizond, and Principality of Theodoro.

Also the Roman Empire should be listed as a predecessor as that page lists the Byzantine Empire (under the name Eastern Roman Empire) as a successor. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't of a region, it's of a multiregional polity that evolved over millennia. The outline you are suggesting is far too broad and unwieldy for an infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the easily summarizable, important information contained within the article body, and what an infobox is actually capable of accurately presenting well has been the subject of much reevaluation over the past few years. Much of the issue is we are trying to cram highly complex, arguably synthetic topics (e.g. "predecessor" and "successor" states) into a visual presentation. I would argue aspects like these just far too complicated for this presentation to be either accurate or specific enough. Remsense留 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're doing research, I would recommend reading the article, not just the infobox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the article would be less bad with a name change

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.

---

If people are going to persist with this fantasy name for a big chunk of the Roman Empire, then a more educational informative title would seem better, such as 'Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire)'. It might stop a lot of people who have yet to gain the knowledge, who would maybe unintentionally ignore the article because the word Roman is not there, from not ignoring the article. Middle More Rider (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me count the ways:

1. The use of a parenthetical disambiguator is usually to be avoided when possible, and I can't think of a worse case than here.
2. You say the article would be less bad, and then you say it is 'unintentionally ignored'. Which is the problem, exactly?
3. Believe it or not, the article name has been discussed before, check the top of this page.

Remsense留 02:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a well known fact that no one reads articles unless they contain the word "Roman". Can you imagine how many people would click on Spanish Empire if it was titled "Spanish Empire (Not Roman Empire)"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to follow the sources. What the professionals use first as our opinions go last.

Kaldellis is the one challenging the convention of the last century (ie, when "Byzantine" replaced empire of the Greeks) and he tends to oscillate between "east Roman" and Ῥωμανία" ("Romanía" or Romanland) which is what they called themselves from the 4th century. There is no scholarly consensus that this is the best solution, despite an acknowledgement that the term Byzantine is problematic by the profession. Biz (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. "Byzantine" is a near universal convention. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 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.

Info box + Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων

A recent edit, appropriately reverted, has me question two things

(1) Do we need to have the infobox title repeat the article name and lead sentence in English? If we can just remove the English, and keep the Latin and Greek, it's one less thing people will constantly want to change.

(2) The editor changed the Greek to Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία. We currently have it as Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. I'll admit, I don't actually know what is correct so not saying what is, but I found this 2007 paper that elucidates what the sources say https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26609804_Some_Questions_Concerning_the_Terminology_used_in_Narrative_Sources_to_Designate_the_Byzantine_State. Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία, Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων (from the mid-sixth century), and 'Ρωμανία (as the eastern empire) are all attested.

(The author's suggestion of Ρωμαίων επικράτεια aka "Roman Domain" I don't think we need to consider because we are not trying to pick a new name in Greek today just use the name that the state used during its existence.) Biz (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox should give the English name. That's bog standard across all articles with infoboxen. I'd sooner see the Latin and Greek removed. Lounghis' article seems to indicate that basileia is marginally more common than the others, but also that there was no single term; in which case it might be better to have a footnote that lists the various Greek terms rather than giving one Greek term preeminance in the infobox. Generally speaking, the infobox is a bad place for anything complicated or nuanced. Furius (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. So in terms of footnote text, my proposal:

"The ways the "Byzantine Empire" was referred to among its inhabitants at the time included Res publica Romana and Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία which means the Roman commonwealth; Imperium Romanorum and Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων interpreted as empire of the Romans. 'Ρωμανία from the mid-sixth century which transliterated is Romania. From the 8th century, we see references in narrative sources to it being called Ῥωμαίων εξουσί which means 'the Roman power' or 'the Roman domination." Biz (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps add quotation marks around the translations and give "dominion" rather than "domination"? Furius (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. Yeah I was just using the source there but agreed dominion translates better. I'll make this edit and if anyone else prefers different they can edit it directly. Biz (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd put on the record that I don't like explanative footnotes on infoboxes. These articles have too many layers of notes already. If something needs an explanative note to be understood properly, then it shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I like that principle. So with that logic, we should remove the title "Byzantine Empire" altogether and move all official names into Nomenclature? Biz (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, of course not. The box still needs some title, and that is of course the title of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

great, back to the starting line again.

"byzantine empire" won

historians with a job and a degree lost

xd 2001:818:DE97:3200:21FE:784:FBA6:F3A7 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's actually nothing wrong with the term (well, other than the congnitive dissonance to understand why we use it). What's really wrong is how scholarship has constructed a view that frames the facts to create a certain narrative, sometimes false, which has and continues to be used for power. The conventional name may change one day; however, understanding how the scholarship has been constructed to distort a narrative is the harder thing to understand and the necessary precondition before there can be any name changes. I implore you to spend more time thinking about this and not the surface level issue of the name. At least, this is what good historians with a degree should be doing. Biz (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You've typed so many words, yet you initiated your paragraph with the following sentence:

"There's actually nothing wrong with the term".

there's not much else to say, unfortunately... 2001:818:DE97:3200:891:FC3F:9896:65C3 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR: Society

I've done a thorough review of "society" this last month. This includes verifying all the original sources, adding new sources (Kaldellis 2023 as a baseline but more where I could like Rotman's new book on slavery that I read and which I discovered from a a review of his earlier book that was used as a reference), expanding on content consequently and re-arranging content where I could. While I feel like I've made an appropriate effort on WP:V (I should point out it was clear to me people who added some of these sources never actually read them which concerns me about the rest of the article), I would like more eyes to ensure I've met other important principles like WP:NPOV. WP:SS is an issue that bugs me, and will happen as certain main articles are improved (Languages of the Roman Empire is one potentially) or created (side note: education needs expansion and has a lot that could be covered). I've made all the references sfnm to enable more references to be added later. This work still feels incomplete and I will continue to work on it as I read more sources this year, but it's now at a point where I'd value more eyes if you've not kept up with the edits I've made.

My preference is you just go in edit the copy unless you feel it really needs to be discussed here. Thanks! Biz (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This needs tó be adressed

There needs tó be more explanation for the debated start date for the Byzantine Empire. Some may say 330, some may say 395, some may say 286. It’s a very complicated scenario. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be, because it's a total retrospective fiction. There was never such a thing as the "Byzantine Empire", and where we precisely draw the line is totally arbitrary and changes almost nothing. The founding of Constantinople is as good a choice as any, and it's what Kaldellis uses in the omnibus narrative history he published last year. Remsense诉 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't want to condescend, but I hope it's helpful that I keep trying to give you the same advice framed in different ways: these periodizations, factoids, and statistics are not the most important things about history. You're free to work on what you like, but if you want to improve the encyclopedia, I would look at contributing to prose, not infoboxes. This is a featured article, there's probably an especially good reason things are the way they are. Remsense诉 02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m sure you know What the dates are refering Too, but the Roman Empire was stil a unified polity when Cosstantinople was founded. It split apart in 395. But no, that edit has only been there recently, as befor this, í was on the page a couple days ago and it said 330/395. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's complex, but that's also my point—it's complicated to the degree that I don't think the infobox needs to be burdened with that information: luckily one generally agreed upon date is fine, because again it's something we're imposing backwards mostly so that we have somewhere to start. The Roman empire from the 3rd century on was never really ruled from one center for long, it was simply too big for that—it's a miracle it took until Theodosius for it to bifurcate for good Remsense诉 02:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Byzantine Empire" in 2024

Why? 2001:818:DE97:3200:7CB9:1417:523:E5AA (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because that is what people refer to it as. For example, Anthony Kaldellis strongly objects to "Byzantine" as a word, but still felt it necessary to subtitle his book "A History of Byzantium". Book sales are presumably higher when people know what you're talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What Airship wrote is the why we are forced to right now. It's the convention. Kaldellis is confident it's not defensible (ie, new generation of academic staff not beholding to past thinking) and it's only a matter of time when the convention will change. His book is a giant leap in moving the conversation, but as a Wikipedia community, we have to respect that we follow the convention set by the academics (at minimum).

There is a deeper reason at play though which is why do historians wish to treat a period of the Roman state as a different entity, which in turn justifies giving it a different name. I've seen editors focused on Roman history here even call it a different civilization.

Fortunately, there has been a lot of great scholarship that is correcting this. For example, I was just reading recently about how education was done (Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 2012) and that it was the exact same from the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman times and right through to the end of the Byzantine empire. This consistency is not the type of thing that justifies calling it a different civilization. Yet there is nothing on Wikipedia that references this credible scholarship and to help address this misconception. Times these misconceptions by a thousand and this is what editors here can do in the interim to help support a convention change if this is what you care about.

We need more people helping us review every sentence and citation in this article if you or anyone else wants to join in. Biz (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle. Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums. Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes. Because WP has editors and policies that have, to everyone's surprise, stood the test of time and work. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle."

"Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums."

Conflicting statements.

"Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes."

Who are you quoting? 2001:818:DE97:3200:CC3:812C:62B3:DF (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The term “Byzantine” should no longer be used by Wikipedia

The term "Byzantine" is basically a derogatory term for the Eastern Roman Empire and shouldn't be used. Whether it's on an article description, or just for general usage in a page. While even though they were Romans it would be better to use Eastern Roman to show they were Romans but also ethnicity, and culturally different. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We go by what the sources think is the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, we can point to how the world’s foremost proponent against “Byzantium” put that word in the title of his recent magnum opus. Or when newly-created accounts start titling themselves "EasternRomanHistory435". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While disruptively changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" 40+ times with no explanation, discussion, or consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the Eastern Roman Empire constitutes enough evidence to state my point. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a comment is proof enough for me that ByzantineHistory435 is WP:NOTHERE.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the user name, this is obviously just trolling. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to add more names?

I understand that although the byzantine empire is a totally inaccurate name, it is the common name so it has to be used but when I try to add other names mainly the roman empire or Romanía It gets reverted? Daemonofthered (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everything one knows about something has to be in the infobox, which is meant to display key facts at a glance for a general audience per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Less is more. With that in mind, the consensus hammered out by contributors on this talk page has been not to add more names. They're in the body in any case. Remsense诉 12:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the key point is MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which specifies that alternative names should a) be significant in English use and b) redirect to the article. Roman Empire and Romania obviously do neither. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Doy, I'm dumb.) Remsense诉 12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand why Roman Empire can’t be used, but Romanía (with the í, instead of the regular i in Romania the country) is becoming a more popular term for the byzantine empire in online historical communities such as reddit. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That matters precisely zero. We write articles based on what appears in reliable sources, not Reddit. The current emphasis reflects that in English-language RS. Also, those names are mentioned, but just, yknow, in the actual article. People obsess with the lead sentences and infobox as if there isn't tens of thousands of actually interesting words. Remsense诉 17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Kaldellis is probably the most well known Byzantine historian today and he often refers to it as Romanía in his books. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kalldellis (2023) is probably one of my favorite narrative histories. However, it's one book among many (though the most recent omnibus history). He's still known by his peers as being a little insistent about it. Maybe it'll be a more common name for the general public in 10 or 30 years, but these things don't turn on a dime. Remsense诉 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood Daemonofthered (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)