Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 349: Line 349:
::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, [[User:Ashmedai 119|Ashmedai 119]] ([[User talk:Ashmedai 119|talk]]) 17:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
::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, [[User:Ashmedai 119|Ashmedai 119]] ([[User talk:Ashmedai 119|talk]]) 17:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Thank you [[USer:Ashmedai 119|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). [[User:Ichthyovenator|Ichthyovenator]] ([[User talk:Ichthyovenator|talk]]) 23:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Thank you [[USer:Ashmedai 119|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). [[User:Ichthyovenator|Ichthyovenator]] ([[User talk:Ichthyovenator|talk]]) 23:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

== Removal of sourced content ==

{{u|Dr.K}}, why have you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Empire&diff=877154772&oldid=877147762] 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 not mention of their use in frontier districts. Please elaborate and the content is sourced RS. Thanks.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:04, 6 January 2019

Template:Vital article

Featured articleByzantine Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
July 29, 2007Featured article reviewKept
June 27, 2012Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics


Please mention Great Schism of AD 1054 in lead

I was surprised not to see the Great Schism of 1054 mentioned in the lead. I suggest the following small insertion:

OLD: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity.

NEW: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and, especially since the Great Schism of AD 1054, characterised by Orthodox Christianity. 81.131.171.56 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That sentence is about the difference between Christianity and ancient Roman polytheism, not that between Eastern and Western churches. And Byzantium was really no more and no less "orthodox" after 1054 than before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1054 just formalized what had essentially been the situation for a few centuries. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empire was known in the West as Imperium Graecorum (Empire of the Greeks) - needs to be in lead

For contemporary Westerners such as Pope Gregory I, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Liutprand of Cremona, Paul the Deacon the chronicler of the Lombards, William of Tyre and many others the Eastern Roman Empire was considered Greek and in most Western documents the empire is called Imperium Graecorum which means a Greek Empire. Of course this addition I added saw an immediate revert by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. However - the lead talks about the various names and spelling of the names in detail - except the actual name that was most used by Western sources! I think it is critical to include the name the Empire was known by at the time by the West. Thoughts? Reaper7 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, content should not be in the lead that is not addressed in the body. Your addition goes into greater detail than the body of the article on this point, which only mentions occasional use of the term. The lead is a summary of the body; the proper place for this detail is in the Nomenclature section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Reaper7 is missing the context. That passage in the lead is exclusively about one thing: the definition of the topic and scope of the article, which requires a discussion of why and how we distinguish the "Byzantine" empire from the "Roman" empire proper (even though it was in many ways the same). That is the sole reason we are mentioning "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman" and so on, at that point. Any material about the ethnic nature of the empire (whatever that may mean, if it means anything at all), or about the perception of that nature by contemporary outsiders, is quite extraneous to that paragraph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly. Imperium Graecorum is what the Empire was known as outside of the Empire itself. It is therefore key and critical to clarifying the whole Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire debate you just brought up. The name Imperium Graecorum should be at least mentioned in the lead - even in brackets with a simple translation - just as it is common in most articles to cite in the lead the most common names used.Reaper7 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the next section - "Nomenclature". Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the description of why the Empire was known as Imperium Graecorum should be explored in the following section - however I believe the lead should contain a mention of the name the West knew the Empire as. Not only historians but even fundamental works of fiction at the time such as Tirant lo Blanch describe the empire solely as Empire of the Greeks. This had nothing to do with the 'ethnic nature' user Fut.Perf is suggesting or anything like that - it was simply the most used name by outsiders. The itself empire was multi ethnic as we all know. We are simply talking about the name used across Europe at the time of the empire. Even the Vikings knew it as Empire of the Greeks.. The good thing about the use of the name in the lead - is it hints at subsequent parts of the article late on. Reaper7 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Imperium Graecorum' is not used by scholars or RS. See T. Kamusella (2008). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. p. 964. The Greeks at the time call themselves the Roman Empire, and never used the term in Greek or Latin of "imperium Graecorum" That term was invented by West Europeans about year 1000 after the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, in order to downgrade Constantinople's claim to "Roman Empire". It is not used by modern scholars or reliable sources-- or anyone else except the makers of electronic games. Kamusella notes that "Byzantine Empire" is also a late coinage, after 1453, from Western Europe. It is the preferred term used by the reliable sources and the scholars. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the West called Byzantium the Empire of the Greeks for the best part of half a millennia is not relevant - just as the reason why the Empire became known as the Byzantine Empire is not relevant in the lead. The Vikings and every other people who called it Empire of the Greeks were not doing so to downgrade its status. It was just the common name. This name later suited the Holy Roman Empire - but the name was in use before then. Reaper7 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the occasional usage in the west many centuries ago is irrelevant to the lede. If you discount the motivation then it's just trivia. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name was the main usage of the Empire in Europe for around 500 years - of course that would be abhorrent to someone who has emotional attachment outside of scholarship to another name - however this is about facts, not emotion or partisanship. You stated why the Holy Roman Empire liked the name - that is irrelevant. The name we use now - Byzantium Empire - and how relevant it is to Greeks or outsiders 1000 years ago - is also irrelevant. Gregory of Tours for example was using the term Greek Empire in the 6 Century AD... The name was common. More so than Eastern Roman Empire - that was not used at any time except now. Reaper7 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"was the main usage" needs a reliable secondary source, please. Fact is that the West switched over to Byzantine Empire as soon as it was no longer necessary to demean or diminish the defunct empire in order to glorify the "Holy Roman Empire." there is a reason for inventing then new name then discarding it. but that reason is not important enough for the lede. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easily done. It was Latin fashion to call it Empire of the Greeks but it was also called that be Vikings and various other less educated peoples. [1] [2] Actualy it was not only the Latin perspective - it was the 'Western perspective' to call it only the Empire of the Greeks. [3][4] In fact some scholars still refer to it as such - please don't blame me for them using the term over 'Byzantine Empire.' [5] So we have established it was the West's main description and in use before 1000AD.[6] I think it deserves at least a brief bracketed mention. It matters not that the Greeks at the time despised the name. There are countless contemporary descriptions of it as Empire of the Greeks only. It is important readers of those works know in the opening lines that the Empire their books are describing is the same one they are currently reading on the article page. A simple Imperium Graecorum (tr: Empire of the Greeks to outsiders) will suffice. Reaper7 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=km_sCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaiJjkzcTaAhWMKMAKHVnyBMIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5igKRBVuFQ0C&pg=PA419&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaiJjkzcTaAhWMKMAKHVnyBMIQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
  3. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kKOY5NsekfkC&pg=PA322&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaiJjkzcTaAhWMKMAKHVnyBMIQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zag0AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT32&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaiJjkzcTaAhWMKMAKHVnyBMIQ6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaiJjkzcTaAhWMKMAKHVnyBMIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f9fTPUTPPhkC&pg=PA142&dq=Imperium+Graecorum+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivitfM1MTaAhXsKcAKHU9uBQU4ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=Imperium%20Graecorum%20greek&f=false
Please read WP:OR. Then reread your own post, especially the formula So we have established. Then go find reliable sources stating it was the West's main description instead of trying to "prove" it through your own research. --T*U (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reaper7 asked me to join this discussion. I'd think that the first priority is to fill out the content in the "Nomenclature" section, with good sources.
It is noteworthy that it was widely used earlier, not only by Luitprand, Pope Gregory, and so on, but also in the English-language literature in the late 17th to late 18th centuries, where it seems to have been more common than the other names. Google nGrams Of course, all this needs WP:RS beyond ngrams, especially since that phrase may also refer to Alexander's conquests.
As for confusing the name "Empire of the Greeks" with the (false) claim that the Empire was a Greek national state, it seems to me that the sentence "Although the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history..." doesn't belong in the nomenclature section. A name is just a name. Russian dressing isn't from Russia, either.
I see no reason that this need be covered in the lead, though. Not only should the lead summarize matters that are already covered in the body of the article, but it should also focus on the topic rather than the name of the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The timeline for “Byzantine Empire”

In the wikipedia-page of the Western Roman Empire the period is listed as “395-476”. I think the Byzantine Empire should be listed as “395-1453” since it makes more sense geographically from my perspective.

But IF it should be an earlier timeline, then it should begin in 286 with Diocletian’s tetrarchy rather than when Constantine founded Constantinople. Moving a capital, founding a capital, converting to a new religion really do not make a new empire.

But all this is a personal perspective of mine.

What do the other editors think?:

Should it start from 286 when Diolectian became sole emperor and initiated the tetrarchy later?

Or 330 when Constantine I founded Constantinople?

Or 395 when the empire was divided for the last time?

En historiker (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


And for the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire

That wikipedia page of "Roman Empire" have "27 BC – 395 AD"

That wikipidia page of "Western Roman Empire" have "395–476"

My opinion is that 395 sounds most correct, both geographically, but also since it is more compatible with the others wikipedia-pages.

One more thing: In the German-, French-, Spanish-, Arabic-wikipedia pages all have listed "395-1453" also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

En historiker (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree “395-1453”. Mind you, there are massive discussions on this in the archives, but more focusing on the name rather than the dates. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached years ago as 330. There have been a number of previous discussions of this issue, including here, where the editor whom you reverted stated the prevailing position, and here. See more recent Archives for further discussions, but 330 has remained the consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Just one little thing: "Partition of the Roman Empire" did not find place in 330. So please fix it since I cannot figure out how to do it properly. En historiker (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so: Partition did not occur until 395. This isn't in question, and the infobox has the wrong label for 293, which is arguably the point at which one emperor (or two!) had an administrative focus on the East. He was/they were still full emperors in the West as well, just not focused on the West. This is as much a psychological distinction as a political one, and in no sense is the RE partitioned by this event. Nor does moving the capital to the East mark a partition: Constantine ruled a united empire, did his successor.
If we want to mark something about 293, can we find a more felicitous label for the event? I haven't come up with one yet, but "partition" is simply wrong. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without historiography in consideration, is there something unique about the 395 division as opposed to previous divisions? Western emperors and consuld had existed before and what happened during the Valentinian dynasty strikes me as particularly similar. I would agree that there clearly wasn't a partition created in 330, as far as I'm aware the infobox uses 330 as it is seen as the beginning of the "byzantine period" (with a center in the East). Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

Tetrarchy: 284

The last division of the Roman Empire in west and east: 395

I think it would make most sense, but perhaps others disagree. En historiker (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added in something similar just now, I suppose if anyone disagrees they can edit it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When one clicks on "Final East-West division" the link leads you to a weird page about Maximian.(??) - It would be more correct if it leads to the page about Theodosius. I don't how to fix it. If other can do it, then please do it. En historiker (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is because "Partition of the Roman Empire" redirects to Maximian being appointed as caesar, did not know this. Changed it to say final division after the death of Theodosius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reads better to my eyes. In answer to a previous question on this point, my understanding is that the separation in 395 produced two separate states, unlike previous separations: separate imperial dynasties and lineages, separate armies, separate taxation, separate political agendas, etc. -- though of course the Western RE did not survive long enough for this divergence to evolve much. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. If the WRE had survived, we might eventually have seen a reunification, and perhaps the Roman world would have followed the Chinese model of periods of fragmentation followed by unified regimes, or the two states might have drifted further apart and developed entirely different identities. In brief, we can't know that. What actually happened was that two separate regimes came into existence in 395, even if they were formally still the one and same state, somewhat the reverse of a personal union. On the starting date, again, while we as Wikipedia editors might like consistency, we have to follow historiographic consensus, and that overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330, for the reasons I listed some time ago. There is no rule that different entities/periods may not have overlapping chronologies, if that is warranted by scholarly use. Constantine ✍ 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice point. Of course, signing your post that way kinda biases the 330 date. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. :) Constantine ✍ 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with the user above, who erroneously stated that historiography "overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330" - actually we have stark scholarly divisions over when the ERE actually starts to exist as a (*separate*) political entity. Some historians say it started back at Diocletian's Tetrarchy; others would claim that it was Heracleus' reforms that kickstarted the new realm. Most historians choose something in the middle, most likely 330 or 395. In my opinion, the Eastern Roman Empire did *not* exist in 330-395, just as the Western Roman Empire didn't. After all, how could the ERE exist in 330-395, but not the Western Roman Empire? Or would you claim that somehow both existed? The point does not sustain itself; most historians also point out that the Roman Empire was firmly united under Constantine I's hand and his immediate successors, and that during the 330-395 timeframe the empire worked as one. Our very own page for the Roman Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) even lists it as ending at 395, with its Western & Eastern halves "coming to life" in 395. I concede that historical accuracy is in a point of dispute over this matter and that 330 is a key year for the ERE that should be pointed out under the spotlight, but for consistency's sake changing the start date to 395 is the best middle ground. LuizLSNeto (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

  • Removal of the newly added coat of arms, per previous discussions;
  • Removal of the transliteration of the "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" (Basileía Rhōmaíōn), not needed, too many information for the name of the empire. --176.92.176.24 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the coat of arms. "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" (Basileía Rhōmaíōn) should stay, many other states have more names and these are both valid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed the display name back to "Byzantine Empire" and removed the odd "status text" line beneath with its confusing additional dates. As for the diaplay title, we've been through this half a dozen times on this talkpage, I'm really sick and tired of this creeping in again and again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the infobox

In the "Capital Constantinople" there is a "c", but when you click on it it leads you to a "b"-footnote about Theodosius.

One has to fix it since I don't know how to do it.

En historiker (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mnmazur (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"East" is bad localization

Lead sentence states that the RE continued in "the East". This is an inappropriate localization. (It did not continue in East Asia, nor in Eastern Europe, nor in East Africa, all possible referents for "the East", especially for non-European/American readers.) It continued in the Eastern Mediterranean.

For some reason, that is regarded as a non-standard descriptor. If a standard matters here, please replace with a standard but appropriate descriptor: "the East" isn't it. Jmacwiki (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now with this edit [1] we have "...the Eastern Roman Empire was the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire"; that's certainly not ideal. I don't think "in the East" is a problem. It should be clear enough from the context that of course it's "the East" of the empire; what else could it be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with that edit (though it is not entirely felicitous), the localization is appropriate. Jmacwiki (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: re this new version [2], sorry for being quite picky now, but I'm afraid "was the continuation of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire" is still not quite acceptable. The crucial point about this lead sentence, which was fought over long and hard some years ago, is to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire not merely in terms of parts of its territory, but in terms of continuity and identity as an institution. In this sense, it's really not quite enough to say it was "the continuation of some part" of the empire; it was the "continuation of the empire" itself, as a whole. Would "continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern parts" be acceptable? (And, as a matter of procedure, given the enormous amounts of past debate that have gone into this wording, could you please come here to the talkpage before inserting further new versions?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, although it's hard to see that discussion reached anything like consensus despite being, as you say, fought over long and hard. Nor can I see the previous wording actually mentioned, though it may be. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information adding

Add please this important characteristic Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe.Link1 LINK 2

The Byzantine Empire played a vital role in the formation of modern Europe and the Middle East. Between the 4th and the 12th century, it was the leading culture that set standards in all areas of life and that had a key influence on all neighbouring states. Byzantium formed a bridge between Antiquity and the Modern Age and, at the same time, between Europe and the Orient.

The series serves as publication organ for the research programme of the Leibniz ScienceCampus Mainz that studies Byzantium, its role as bridge between East and West, and cultural transfer and reception processes from Antiquity to modern times. The methods and research subjects of the various disciplines dedicated to Byzantium are brought together across traditional disciplinary boundaries in order to take a comprehensive historical and cultural approach to research into Byzantium and its material and immaterial culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.247.126 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: We can't take text copied and pasted from other websites; please see WP:COPYVIO. Also your second paragraph makes no sense in the context of an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KuyaBriBri. The sentence The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. is not copied (; ....it's my formulation --85.212.154.192 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion: remove that ugly tremissis coin as intro-image

That gold coin depicting Justinian in the beginning of the page is really ugly, and it tells not much to the readers. In contrary the Ravenna-mosaic of Justinian and his men is more vivid and more byzantine-"styled", and it will make more impression on the readers when they visit that wiki-page.

Thus I suggest to remove that tremissis of Justinian, and instead use use this Ravenna-mosaic as the intro-image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_San_Vitale#/media/File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_003.jpg


What do the editors think?

En historiker (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better choice. The mosaic is quintessentially byzantine, and much more aesthetic than the coin. Khirurg (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would object just on the basis of consistency with other articles on the Roman state (Roman Republic, Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire). I also don't think it's very reasonable to change the long-standing infobox image after 2 days of discussion where just one other editor replied. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the mosaic is more representative and more informative than a coin. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It represents a single emperor and his courtiers and while it may be more representative and informative it is inconsistent with virtually every single other article on an historical state, out of which many use coins (available for the Byzantine Empire, we could go with any number of choices here) or flags (there are Palaiologan-aged flags we could use). We might also use the Byzantine Eagle as Empire of Trebizond and Empire of Nicaea does. The mosaic is miniaturized to a large extent when used in the infobox and is an odd choice to go with in my opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The slot in the infobox is meant for a flag. If there is no flag, and no other alternative symbol that is representative, recognizable and unique to a similar degree, then the obvious solution is to not use an image in that position at all. I don't really see the value of the Ravenna mosaic either. Sure, it's a fine work of art and connected to an important figure in the history of the empire, but it really has nothing to do with a flag-like symbol representing the empire. As for the Palaiologos flag, I think it has been discussed here repeatedly and the outcome always was that we don't want to use it , in order to not further proliferate the naive misunderstanding that it was somehow representative of the empire in its entire duration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware and I agree. If coins are not also representative there are a lot of infoboxes that need to be stripped of images. Or would a coin work? Might the eagle alternatively be considered representative and recognizable? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it absolutely has to be a coin then perhaps this coin beneath would be a better choice simple because it is more beautiful, and more decorated than that Justinian-coin. It may look ugly when seeing a large image, but once the size becomes small in the page the coin becomes more stunning: Here is that Heraclius coin I am talking about:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius#/media/File:Heraclius_613-616.jpg

Here you can see a smaller image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius


En historiker (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely approve of that coin as the infobox image. It looks aesthetically better than the currently used one and Heraclius himself is (like Justinian) highly important to the later development of the empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any here can do the image of Heraclius and his son smaller, then please do it. En historiker (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the image size and linked Heraclius Constantine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Could you please upload some photos of a geared mechanism?

Some sort of the Antikythera mechanism was reactivated in the 500s in Byzantium, and it is the second oldest geared mechanism ever known. Look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZupgfqqZuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHq4O-ib2U

But the problem is that there are no wikipedia-image of it.

If you google "The Byzantine sundial calendar" you will find a lot images of that.

Can any of you upload/create some image(s) so I can upload them in the Byzantine-page and other pages that deal with mechanism. Because it is incredible mechanism showing Byzantine technology and its strong scientific capacity.

I hope some of you can create an image of that Byzantine sundial device.

En historiker (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Look here:

https://twitter.com/clickspring1/status/832382420984819712

and here:

http://collection.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/co1082/byzantine-portable-universal-altitude-sundial-with-geared-calendrical-device-sundial-perpetual-calendar

En historiker (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

The article is 103kB of readable prose, which is at the far limit of WP:SIZERULE. I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length. It may be due for a review. Even though the subject is complex, and covers a long period of time, that is not a reason to keep a long article. It should be condensed (and split if required). Many of the existing sections have "see also" or "main" links, but still have lengthy entries, which should be condensed. (Hohum @) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As is easily ascertained from the box above and the page history, this became an FA in January 2004, when only some 15k raw bytes long - it has remained one ever since. A look at that version (sorry, forgot to copy the link) shows it would be very lucky to get GA today, even if it were fully referenced, which of course it was not. This isn't a useful comparison for any purpose. Btw, it is currently the 22nd-longest FA, a good deal shorter than Taylor Swift or Balfour Declaration. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what point you're trying to make, but all but one of the preceding 21 articles in that list have a smaller readable prose size than this one. This article is too long.
It passed its most recent FA review in 2012, in far better condition than 2004 (Hohum @) 01:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - the point I'm making is that your "I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length", though a considerable understatement, is also entirely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe that the many FAs with over twice the raw byte size of this have shorter readable prose, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See for yourself using Prosesize. Also try a little AGF. (Hohum @) 01:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What parts could be moved to other articles? This article indeed needs improvement. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the great span of time that needs to be covered in this article, I am not sure that it should get much shorter, but there are sections [such as the one on the "Campaigns against Georgia"] that could definitely get trimmed. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
History of the world manages it, so can this article.
Ref: "What parts could be moved to other articles?" - Many already have their own articles, yet the sections they link from here are longer than required. (Hohum @) 14:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire lasted for over 1000 years, and not just 50, 100 or 200 years as many other states. In the 1000 years of existence the state also expanded and declined 4-5 times. En historiker (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a quick look-through, the article seemed well-balanced, with only the "Campaigns against Georgia" section seeming obviously rather too long (I see someone else agrees on this). I think a sympathetic trim throughout, especially of political intricacies, would do it. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Any other suggestions on what else can be trimmed? Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some bits and pieces that I felt were excessively detailed or unsourced, it's back down to 99 kb of prose now. Khirurg (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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?
Ἰωάννης [...] βασιλεύς πορφυρογέννητος καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ 'Ρωμαίων ὁ Κομνηνός.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Dr.K, why have you reverted [3] 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 not mention of their use in frontier districts. Please elaborate and the content is sourced RS. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byzantine_Empire&diff=877155538&oldid=876066870

Leave a Reply