Talk:Byzantine Empire
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Byzantine Empire is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Many thanks for the revisions. The article looks much more informative now. I added some names to establish some empty links that I am planning to fill in the following days. The statement that the date of the invasion of Constantinople is one of the conventional dates for the beginning of modern ages has been deleted. Is this a disputable information? Otherwise, it seems to be a useful information. ErdemTuzun
Thanks for making the article in the first place, I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise, though Byzantium's one of my favorite civilizations. The comment was missing simply because I forgot to rework it in. I've added it, plus a note on urban life I forgot to make. --Josh Grosse
Should there be a link to the Ottoman Empire, which was in the same region at a later time? -- ansible
I suggest adding something about the Empress Irene and the Carolingians. Also --and I say this in all seriousness -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FEUDAL? Just wondering, since this term is misused so frequently and context changes according to time and place... JHK
Minor question: Were Khazars really overhelming most of Balkany? I always thought that far more important were Slavic invasion which overhelmed most of Blakany, and nevr heard about Khazars doing that.. Any eason why Khazars and Lombards are mentioned and Slavic invasion is not? User:szopen
Again, i don't know much about Byzantine Empire, but i've never ever heard about Khazars conquering whole Balkans, instead i know quite a few stories about Slavic tribes overhelming whole Balkans, Bulgars etc. In Kazars entry there is nothing about that (and that would be important fact). So is this just simple mistake, and i cuol dcorrect it, or there was such a great invasion of Khazars which ended with all Balkans being in their posession? [[szopen]]
Ok, i asked two times, wait a long time, so i changed Khazars to Slavs. I don't know anything about Khazars overhelming whole Balkans. But i know that Slavs invaded Byzantine empire and _they_ conquered whoel Balkans. So i guess someone just made a mistake, so i corrected it. szopen
I'm the person who mentioned them originally, and unfortunately haven't been here for a while, which is why I didn't respond. The Slavs never really conquered much of the Balkans, except in association with other invading peoples, most notably the Khazars but also the Avars and Bulgars (who were not Slavic until they were assimilated later). I'm not sure if the difference is important enough to revert the page, though. --User:Josh Grosse
Well, yes, they do. They many times sieged Thesalloniki.
The fact was, Slavs were farmers and never organised large staes and large conquest, and they were allies of other people. Bulgars conquered Slavs which were already in Bulgaria.
Interesting to know about Khazars, though. I know about Avars (word Avar, i heard, gave origin to word "olbrzym" meaning big, huge man) but i never, in any historic book i had read, had heard about Khazars cooperating with Slavs. I always thought they were limited to northern steppes. szopen
Does not the text as it stands give insufficient weight to the fact that Latin remained the official language of the administration until the time of Heraclius? djnjwd
- The inscriptions on their coins were all in Latin until the end of Heraclius / beginning of Constans II, when they switched to Greek. Not sure if that is good evidence or not. M123 20:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
When I expanded the article, I hope I made sufficient note of the Latin vs. Greek parts. Adam Bishop 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Oddly enough, however, these selfsame historians have never felt a need to invent a new name for France, Spain or other western European countries that have radically changed over the centuries.
I removed that because it sounded a little bitter, or something...also, France has not always been called France, it was Gaul, or Francia/Austria/Neustria, I believe this is discussed in the History of France article. Adam Bishop 19:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The way this is written, it makes it sound like everyone in the Eastern Empire spoke Greek. Greek was the language of Alexandria, Antioch and a few other major cities, but most of Egypt spoke Egyptian (Coptic), and Aramaic was the langauge of the area between Egypt and modern Turkey. There was also a latin-speaking region - Justinian I was a native latin speaker from modern albania.
- 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Just a note on romanization of Greek: There is a tendency to use quasi-Latin romanization of Greek names and words in the Western tradition. This is somewhat defensible up to the Hellenistic Era, as there is evidence that ancient Greek was pronounced rather differently than modern Greek (although the resulting pronunciations do sound rather ugly...). For the Byzantine era, the evidence is that the pronunciation then current is more like modern than ancient Greek, and so a modern system of romanization is very much in order. Good examples are the titles of the emperor: aftokrátor (autocrator in quasi-Latin) and vasiléfs (basileus). (If you're looking for evidence that β was pronounced [v] and not [b], just look at the Cyrillic alphabet, which dates from the mid-Byzantine era: the letter в, borrowed directly from Greek, represents [v], and a new letter (б) was invented for the [b] sound.) Anyway, an article on Greek history should represent Greek terminology and names in a less Latinocentric manner. I'm not going to mess with the names of the vasileîs for now, but they too should really not be Latinized after a certain point. —Tkinias 09:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Addendum: It looks like the sound changes occurred earlier than I had realized, so that New Testament–era Greek is pronounced more like modern than ancient Greek [1] (http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/pronunciation.html). —Tkinias 10:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In principle I agree with you, but there is a Wikipedia convention that all proper names should be given in their most common form in English, and the fact is that for Greek names English traditionally uses Latinised forms, so we write Byzantium rather than Byzantion, just as we write Moscow rather than Moskva etc. I think this is a sound practice in a general-readership encyclopaedia (as opposed to an enkuklopaidia). Once we abandon this principle, where do we stop? Adam 10:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't embark on a wholesale moving of emperors to the Greek spellings! ;) The only things I altered (unless I got carried away somewhere...) were where Greek words or names were directly cited—for example, the quasi-Latin Constantinoupolis or basileus. It would be useful, of course, to give the Greek and romanized-Greek versions of names on the appropriate pages, but I'm not going to campaign to get everything moved to romanized Greek spellings for the emperors' names, when the Latinized ones are established in usage. (I'm busy trying to fix really screwed up Arabic romanization at the moment anyway...) Hell, it's not like we get the Latin Romans' names right in English, either... In short, I'd just like to see mediaeval Greek accurately romanized, while remaining within the Wikipedia convention of filing things under English versions of names. —Tkinias 10:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Um, yes, but the fact is that Konstantinoupolis is not the most common form of the name in English, Constantinople is. The correct Greek forms of the name can be discussed at Constantinople, but in this article the standard form should be used without comment, since this is not an article about Greek etymology. Likewise with "valiseios" and "aftokrator" etc. This kind of semantic digression doesn't belong in this article. Adam 11:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that semantic digressions are inappropriate in this article. I did not add them; I merely corrected the romanization of Greek terms or names which were introduced into the article by other contributers. Not mentioning the Greek name of Constantinople, or the Greek title of the emperor, is one thing; mentioning them and inaccurately romanizing them is another. An analogy would be: If an article consistently writes Munich in reference to the Bavarian city, that would be normal (and, according to Wikipedia policy, correct) English usage; if the article notes that the name in German is Munshen, it would be appropriate to correct that to München. —Tkinias 11:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Naming
An anonymous user (212.113.164.98) is changing references to the Byzantine Empire to read Eastern Roman. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't know enough about the topic to know if it is valid. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It hasn't been, and I think they have all been reverted now...I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but we have been using "Byzantine" here rather than "East Roman." Adam Bishop 05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I really don't think it matters. Byzantine is just the term modern historian terminology, even though at the time the Byzantines regarded themselves as the Roman empire itself, which was true. I think the terms are interchangeable, and readers are well aware of this from the beginning. As to whether it was more Roman than the Western side of Europe depends entirely on which side you sympathise. It is important to note to people who don't know much about the subject, that there has been a lot of western European bias about the Byzantine empire (they were hated and envied) up until recently. The empire has been shunned from the (Western-written) history books. Modern Greek people regard themselves as descendants of the Byzantines (rather than the Ancient Greeks), and so there is a lot of pride in the empire by Greek people. Eliasbizannes 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Map
The map provided is not good enough. I don't think it is representative of the true breadth of the Byzantines. The map, taken as a snapshot in 1265, was when the empire was in steep decline. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 also quite literally ripped the guts out of the empire. So a map when the empire was in steep decline, and at its most vulnerable as it tried to reclaim lost land, is inappropriate. I will try to find a better map, but I think people should be aware of this. It is the equivalent of using a map of modern day Britain, and as the sole picture, implying that is what the British Empire was like at its peak. Eliasbizannes 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I found a link for people to get a better understanding about the size of the empire. These maps (http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~sctwiseh/Roman/3CompMaps.html) compare the Roman empire, Byzantine empire and several empires on a map of Europe. Most importantly, it shows the Byzantine empire at 1204 - its low point - and 564, when it was at its peak. The site (http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~sctwiseh/Roman/RomanEmpire.html) also has other maps and information which will help newbies with the subject., Eliasbizannes 12:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that we need to find a map in the public domain, or a map that is not copyrighted. There are plenty of good maps on the Internet but we can't use most of them. Adam Bishop 17:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've done some Byzantine maps for the Finnish WP. See fi:Bysantin valtakunta. I've been meaning to translate all the names to "english", but I've been too busy. :) -- Jniemenmaa 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm using IE 6.0.28 and the "timeline" that is supposed to line the right side of the page blocks out the entire abstract. Unfortunately, fixing it is a bit beyond my expertise.Variable 19:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was my fault, I fixed it now - I forgot to set the width of the new table row I added. Adam Bishop 00:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
Just wondered why the new qualifying language and interpolations about multiethnicity and multilanguage were removed. It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in. Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians? What about the Isaurian mountain folk? What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? What about the predecessors of the Albanians? Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed? I am a great admirer of the medieval Greeks--in other new interpolations I exerted myself to refute the unfair prejudices and stereotypes about them that for too many centuries dominated scholarship on this subject. But the paragraph on Byzantine identity as it stands seems to be an exaggeration of the facts. Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert. Unless the point about the Greek identity of the "Balkans" etc. can be substantiated by scholarship, I think the text should either be restored or something entirely new should be added by someone who has the scholarly foundation in Byzantinism that I sadly lack.
I'm sorry if I have offended you by editing the article but the picture promoted of Byzantium as a cultural amalgamation by Runciman and his followers falls short of the truth. More recent scholarship has proved that even in its early centuries Byzantium was more Greek than previously believed, rendering older works outdated. The simple fact that even before the fall of Rome "Roman" had already began to mean "Greek" demonstrates the marginalization of foreign societies (which shouldnt be a suprise given that even in the pre-Diocletian empire some lands were favored over others despite their equality in law). See for example Warren Treadgold (History of the Byzantine State and Society, 1997, pg.136): "By that time [fall of Rome] most easterners had come to think themselves as Christians, and more than ever before had some idea that they were Romans. Although they may not have liked their government any more than before, the Greeks among them could no longer consider it foreign, run by Latins from Italy. The word Greek itself had already began to mean a pagan rather than a person of Greek race or culture. Instead the usual word for an eastern Greek had begun to be Roman, which we modern render as Byzantine".
Treadgold deliberately distincts Greeks from the rest of the population precicely because of their elevated position in the empire, in order to explain their subsequent dominance in it. The fact that the Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship to all races does not mean it provided for the development of a pluralist society, which was defined by the aggregate of national traits. That would amount to partiallity because the influence of Greeks was disproportionaly greater than that of other peoples ever since the beginning, and would also be unfair to the persistance of national identities alongside Byzantinism within the territories, such as those of the Armenians.
Which is why I think Byzantium's identity depends more on its fluid society than on the territories it encompassed, as you suggest.
The fact that Armenians resided within the Byzantine Empire does not erase their own existing national identity, which is also true for the Armenians that resided outside the empire (the so called armenian buffer state). To quote Armenian area specialist Nina G. Garsoian (The Problem of Armenian Integration in the Byzantine Empire, 1998, pg.54):As early as the reign of Diocletian, the ancient cis-Euphratine kingdom of Armenia Minor emerged from Cappadocia to become a seperate province which was split under Theodocius I into Armenia I and Armenia II... Subsequent evidence that the region remained demographicaly and culturaly Armenian is provided by the complaints of the bishops of Armenia II, in their answer to the Encyclical of emperor Leo in 458, that they were living among barbarians. One century later, the great administrative reform of Justinian in 536, which created four Armenias, including the two former provinces of that name together with portions of the trans-Euphratine kingdom of Greater Armenia and Pontus, indicates that the imperial authorities still regarded the regions as primarily Armenian." There is a plethora of medieval sources that distinct between Romans and Armenians, indicating and verifying that the Armenians never truly integrated into Byzantium and maintained their own national consience, which is why they were never anything more than an ethnic minority and alien to Roman nationality.
It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in.
This was the basis of Fallmerayer's theory of the bastardization of the modern Greek nation, whose blood supposedly was permanently lossed after centuries of repeated Slavic settlements. His theory though has long been rejected and his claims refuted. Slavic conquests into Greece proper were temporary and whatever population movement came with them eventually returned to north of Macedonia where it remained ever since. The few Slavic settlers that did remain behind were either assimilated by Greeks or marginilized into extinction since no medieval source indicates the presence of large slavic population among Greeks.
Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians?
The Bulgarians held an even lower position than the Armenians. They were organized into ducates, not themes, which means they were recognized as a non-Roman people who were not granted citizenship, did not participate in the army, were exluded from the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and served primarily to protect the Greek speaking territories south of them. The position of Venice parallels this. As part of the empire in the 10th century, just like Bulgaria, she served more as an ally.
What about the Isaurian mountain folk?
The Isaurians were considered barbarians or at least Romans of barbaric origins that lived well into the empire. Zeno the Isaurian was forced to change his name into Greek and a great deal of his pains during his reign were due to his Isaurian origins.
What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)?
Religious heresies were always present, and Bogomilism in particular originated from Bulgaria so there is little to say about Byzantium.
What about the predecessors of the Albanians?
Albanians were were one of the smallest non-Greek populations in the empire. What about them?
Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed?
Because I think that the fact Armenians rose to high administrational positions does not reflect the prevailing Byzantine concept of a Roman that was defined in spite of those minorities. The army was always the chief integrational mechanism, and all Armenians that entered government achieved it through the army, but that still doesnt take into account that Armenians maintained their own seperate national conscience, that remained alive even after they were left outside the empire.
Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert.
Why not? The Byzantines themselves were aware of their Greek-Roman ancestry and so were the neighbours of Byzantium, even prior to the the battle of Manzikert.
Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks for your detailed answer. I do not dispute that a Greek Orthodox elite and a Greek Orthodox culture were dominant throughout the empire. My only remaining question would be whether "most" of the people in the giant Balkan and Anatolian territories of the Middle Empire (before Manzikert) actually regarded themselves as Greeks. Your grasp of recent scholarship on this point is impressive and I am inclined to defer to you. Might I suggest you add a sentence or two to the article about why the Seljuks were able to take over and Islamicize eastern and central Anatolia with so little apparent resistance from the local population -- and why the imperial state didn't exert itself more strongly to recover what some modern scholars have depicted as the Empire's heartland. This is something that's always puzzled me. Its like the big elephant in the middle of the living room in the accounts (admittedly outdated) of Byzantine history that I have read. Had environmental degradation already partly depopulated this region, or what?
- They did attempt to take back Anatolia, when they had a big enough army to do so, and they gradually took a lot of it back in the 12th century. Myriokephalon was more of a disaster than Manzikert in this sense - they never got eastern Anatolia back at all after that battle. By the way, you guys might want to sign your names here, even if you don't have a user name (just type ~~~~), it makes it easier to follow a discussion. Adam Bishop 00:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eastern Roman Empire
I seriously encourage everybody to agree to moving "Byzantine empire" (a modern semi-spurious coinage) to Eastern Roman Empire, which is more accurate. It won't cause any problems, as anybody typing in "Byzantine empire" will be redirected. Decius 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Aaarrgggh...we were just talking about this on Talk:List of Roman Emperors. I seriously encourage you *NOT* to move this. I don't see why "Eastern Roman Empire" is all that much more accurate, they didn't call it that either. In modern historiography it is called "Byzantine Empire" no matter what they called it...I mean, every modern work on the subject calls them "Byzantine" (personally I have three text books with "Byzantine" in the title, and Dumbarton Oaks has "Byzantine Studies", etc etc). Please, DON'T move it. Adam Bishop 04:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They called themselves the Roman Empire, so it is more accurate. And the article should be moved. Decius 04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The fact that many modern works refer to it as "Byzantine" is irrelevant, and I don't see why this ongoing error should be continued in this new Century. That's old garbage. Decius 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh Christ...it'll get moved over my banned de-adminned move-warring body :) Adam Bishop 04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Decius, while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think that a) you need to calm down, and back down a bit; and b) that we need to make our article titles correspond to usage, not to ideal usage. Now, it seems to me that English usage has been a bit towards the term "Eastern Empire" rather than "Byzantine Empire." And, logically, it doesn't make much sense to call it after the name that its capital bore before the state itself existed. That being said, as Adam points out, dominant English usage remains "Byzantine Empire," and wikipedia's job should be to reflect usage, not create it. The fact that other terms are sometimes used ought to be mentioned up front, though. john k 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not in any way creating usage, as there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Eastern Roman Empire, so I don't see any legs for the counter-argument. Decius 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But the counter-argument is that there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. How could that not have "legs"? Adam Bishop 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage, and it has the advantage of being more accurate. Think about it. I don't know why you are so much in support of the Byzantine term, just because it is somewhat more common in English usage. Decius 04:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't want this to turn into a battle of egos, I just want this proposed renaming of the article to be voted on at least. Decius 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, because it's more common, as you said. I think you just answered your own question. I don't know about you, but I've never met any Eastern Roman historians, taken a class on the Eastern Roman Empire, read any books about the Eastern Roman Empire...we call it Byzantine, that's just what we call it now. But fine, set up a vote if you want. Adam Bishop 04:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are using an example that is misleading: in certain contexts, "Byzantine" is simply an easier adjective to use (i.e. "Byzantine studies", a "Byzantine ship"), but when it comes to the official name of an article, there is no need to use shorthand. Decius 04:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have read English books with Eastern Roman Empire as the titled used, though I don't remember the ISBN's. Decius 04:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's not misleading at all, "Byzantine" in this sense is used as a formal name. "Eastern Roman" can be used alongside this as an alternate name, but it sounds kind of archaic or poetic. If you can remember those books you read, that would help I suppose. Adam Bishop 05:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Byzantine Empire is simpler, and more common. I vote we keep it here. But what of the Western Roman Empire? Simply limiting Roman Empire to the history of the West, and a footnote to mention Byzantium is ignorant and damaging. -Chris5369 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Roman Empire article should discuss the history of the entire empire through the fifth century, and then refer you to Byzantine Empire for the further history of the east. john k 02:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Err, why? Wouldn't make much more sense to create an overview of the entire empire, and refer to such specific lengths in detail in their respective articles? -Chris5369 05:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Roman Empire article should of course note that the eastern empire survived until 1453. But I don't think it should go beyond that. The Byzantine Empire is a separate field of study from the Roman Empire. I agree with you that it is wrong to talk in the 5th century as though the western empire is the empire, when the eastern empire continues to exist and is just as much the empire. But after that, so long as the Roman Empire article makes clear that the eastern empire continued and is known as the Byzantine Empire, and covered in that article, what would be the benefit of having a review of Byzantine history in the Roman Empire article? To recount Byzantine history at the same length as one recounts the earlier history would make the article unwieldy. Plus, you open the question of whether the western empire that recommenced with Charlemagne should be discussed. (The rationale for crowning Charlemagne, after all, was that the Byzantine throne was empty due to the usurpation of Irene). And that would just be a mess. Why don't we just leave it as it is? john k 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want the article to even go as in-depth as it does now. I would like it to be a brief overview of the Roman Empire, and various times and subjects (the republic & dictatorships [an introduction to the empire], principae, dominate, byzantium, etc.) would have their own seperate articles that are referred to. -Chris5369 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Eastern Roman Empire" was a temporary term, used when the empire was ruled by two co-emperors and was permanently abandoned after the fall of the western half of the Roman empire. The term is not recorded in any official records after the 5th century nor is it used in any pre-modern histories. For the short period of time it was used it didnt relate to any of the cultural or other processes underway that would eventually allow the east to grow independently of the west, but was used purely for administrational reasons. The Roman empire from beginning to end was always considered a single realm, politicaly indistinguishable from the later christian empire that turned into a Greek nation state. In that respect, and insofar as "Eastern Roman Empire" describes the empire after the fall of the west, it is a modernist construction as artificial as "Byzantine Empire", because in truth neither was used by roman contemporaries in the manner historians use it today. The fact that the former holds a precedent over the later (in that it was used by 4th and 5th cent. authorities) doesnt give it an edge over other terms. Like another contributor noted above, the Roman empire in antiquity differed vastly from that in the middle ages and nominal continuities shouldnt overshadow irreversible breaks with the past. No need to be scholastic.
The men that fought against the Turks in 1453 believed that they fought defending the same empire Augustus forged in 27 b.c., yet only in name had those in Constantinople anything in common with Augustus' contemporaries in Rome. I dont think a larger common article about the Roman empire -ancient and mediaeval- is required, nor is a bundle of smaller ones sorted out in periods, nor is any renaming required. "Byzantine" is a better established term than "Eastern Roman" and roman history in wikipedia is more or less already well categorized. There's room for improvement but I dont think there's a need for massive restructuring. What's needed is closer ties to academic discipline. -Colossus
- Who was saying that "Greeks were the minority" ? Greeks were one of the many ethnicities that comprised the Empire---that phrase doesn't imply that they were in the minority or the majority, it's just a statement of fact. As for Eastern Roman Empire no one here was saying that such a term was used by the Empire itself. The fact that the term Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage is to be stated upfront. "Proof against the notion", but that notion was not even raised by that statement, and I have no qualms with "that notion". Decius 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't give a shit what anyone says on the matter, and not stating that there are other common names used to refer to the Empire is a stupid-motherfucking-thing-to do, point blank. Decius 17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're being scholastic. Just because it contains the word "roman" doesnt mean it holds closer ties to historical truth than "byzantine" does. Both terms were adopted as a means to refer to the medieval empire as a SEPERATE entity without bringing to mind its ancient predecessor, and the only way to do that was creating a new name that would have no relation with its ancient past. The fact that you insist on using a term that makes the connection with antiquity all the more evident and the distinction with it all the more confusing goes against the very reasoning it was based upon. Otherwise it would just be called the Roman empire, without the easterns and byzantines. Middle ground isnt always the best solution, which is why academics prefer "Byzantine". But you seem to be fixated on that so I wont push it. So be it.
- As for the Greek thing your original article read as: "also as the Eastern Empire, or the Greek Empire, though Greeks were only one of the many ethnicities comprising the empire". Again you claim that its not a distortion of truth, yet you leave room for doubt by implying the label "Greek Empire" is a paradox or at least peculiar given that other ethnic groups co-existed along with Greeks. As if there ever was or ever will be a state or even a nation-state which is ethnicaly 100% pure. So, unless the Byzantine empire is a special case, why should the obvious need be mentioned at all? Isnt it a given that ethnic minorities exist in every sovereign state? Is it necessary to mention that Romania isnt inhabited by ethnic Romanians only? -Colossus
"Flag of the Byzantine Empire"
Bogus anachronism. Not to waste words. --Wetman 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That whole table is pretty anachronistic. Adam Bishop 11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That motto! --Wetman 13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To User:207.5.206.179 and User:Rangeley (assuming you are the same person), it's more than population and land area that are anachronistic:
- First of all, we already have numerous maps on the page; to suggest any of them is representative of the empire is not very useful, especially because for most of its history it didn't control the western Mediterranean.
- The motto is not the motto of the empire, it's the motto of the Palaeologan dynasty (and the carving of the double-headed eagle that was added to the table awhile ago is a Palaeologan symbol, not one of the empire in general).
- I suppose it is possible to say the "official language" was Greek, although it wasn't always (for the period in that map and that flag apply, it was Latin). The idea of an "official language" is anachronistic in itself anyway.
- So much of this article talks about how difficult it is to date the beginning of the empire...284 won't do without a lot of explanation (and even 1453 for "dissolution", whatever that means here, can be kind of contentious).
- The currency changes frequently, the follis is not the only currency they ever had (and to say they ever had an official currency is, again, an anachronism).
- Where did you get that flag anyway? See Wetman's comment above. Adam Bishop 21:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Technically the Byzantine Empire began in 27 B.C. because it was really just a continuation of the Roman Empire , just with a different capitol
The Byzantines themselves were Greeks not Romans, and that makes a tiny big difference. Of course the real Latin-speaking Romans as an ethnic group were already extinct, and the term "Roman" became a title of nobility (in a way). But then again the Latins of the middle-ages were the enemies of the Byzantines, so again it doesn't make sense unless you draw a line between Roman and Byzantine Empires. Of course it's wise to point out their strong cultural and historical links and characterise Byzantium as an authentic Roman successor state. Miskin
What happened to all the maps?
- Nothing...I still see them... Adam Bishop 05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- I see them as well. That said, it seems to me we should have some maps covering the appearance of the empire between 565 and 1180...one in the early 8th century, showing the effects of the Arab, Slavic, and Lombard incursions, and one in the early 11th century, showing the recovery under the Macedonian Empire, would be good. One showing the restored empire of the Palĉologi at its height would be nice, too. john k 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't you mean to say the "Macedonian Dynasty"? The "Macedonian Empire" refers to a different period of Greek history... Miskin
Byzantine disambig page
The Byzantine page has recently been changed from a redirect (to here) to a disambig. The only alternate meaning given other than the Empire is the adjectival (convoluted, perversely complex). This latter sense is also covered in the article here (section #8) - so, for the sake of avoiding minor annoyance of multiple hops, are there any objections if this is changed back to a redirect? --cjllw | TALK 01:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the meaning of the word "byzantine" is not encyclopedic. It should stay a redirect. john k 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, change it back. It also helps to have it as a redirect when I am too lazy to type [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] :) Adam Bishop 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, 'tis done - reverted.--cjllw | TALK 09:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Maps
I noticed when reading over this article that all the maps have copyright tags on them. Shouldn't these be removed as they're under the GNU Free Documentation License? Leithp 11:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you follow the links to their licenses on Wikimedia Commons, you'll see that the userid who uploaded them is extremely similar to that of the person whose name is in the copyright notices. He seems to have placed them under the GFDL himself. —User:ASDamick/sig 21:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that. I was referring to removing the tags, not the maps. Leithp 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I added the copyright notices on the images themselves because I got tired of seeing my maps on one certain Wikipedia clone that claimed they owned the copyrights for them (fortunately that site is compliant with the GFDL nowadays). But anyway, I still own the copyright for the maps even if I released the maps under the GFDL. Of course anyone could just remove the copyright-notice from the map, that shouldn't conflict with the GFDL. At least I think so... IANAL -- Jniemenmaa 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. It's a fairly petty point I was making but since it's a featured article I thought I should ask anyway. Leithp 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)