This is an archive of past discussions about Byzantine Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A brief resteraunt. "Byzantine identity" is not OR; it is a term in current usage by prominent Byzantinists, as attested, for example, by the works cited shortly above (Cameron; Magdalino; Laiou and Ahrweiler). It also serves as a reasonable translation of the German-language notion of "byzantinisches Selbstverständnis," as for example P. Speck, "Ideologische Ansprüche - historische Realität: zum Problem des Selbstverständnisses der Byzantiner," Südosteuropa Jahrbuch 26 (1994), also a useful source on the topic.
The subject is not suitably covered by the proposed entry, "Byzantine Greeks," as "throughout its history, the Byzantine Empire was a multi-ethnic state" and furthermore "ethnicity as such is, of course, a modern concept, which the Byzantines would not have recognized." (Laiou & Ahrweiler, p. vii).
One happy result of the foregoing conversation is that I have collected a number of recent sources on the subject, and would happily contribte to the composition of an article, were I confident that it would not be shortly thereafter removed. --Javits200017:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A google search of "Byzantine identity -wikipedia" gives 323 results. I noticed that most of them deal with artistic topics, so I tried the string "Byzantine identity -wikipedia -art", which gives only 176 results. If you add a -"Greek Byzantine" you'll be at 160. I guess if you keep filtering possible irrelevant content you'll be able to count the results in your fingers. "Byzantine Greeks -wikipedia" gives 13,900 results. Citing titles of books doesn't help with anything. So far none of your citations prove anything or reflect a consensus, for example nobody ever supported that ethnicity existed in the middle ages. The term "Greeks" when aplied to Byzantium is primarily cultural and religious, after all it was the defacto name the non-Byzantines used ('Byzantines' is a complete exonym). A 'Greek' in the sense of 'Hellenic' identity exists in the middle and late periods only (within Byzantium that is). So there's nothing new coming from your current citations. You have to prove that "Greeks" is restricted or completely out of use in order to make a case. Last but not least, "Byzantine identity is a POV-fork to a featured article, so even if you created it, it would be renamed and/or deleted eventually. Miskin18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't really say anything which supports Javits' thesis, last time I checked she referred to the Byzantine Empire as "Greek East". By the way Septentrionalis once tried to make a section on Fallmerayer's theories in the article Greeks, and re-edit the article so that Greek history starts from 1821. Miskin18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted the quote. A multi-ethnic empire does not rule out a national empire. Neither ethnicity nor nationality are modern concepts. Infact, they are rooted very much in the middle ages, and there exist testimonies by several medieval contemporaries attesting to the fact. Laiou only meant that nationality in Byzantium was not based on ethnic affiliation as it does today, - at least not as much early on - but on much more loose criteria inherited from ancient Rome enabling access to non-Greeks as well. As for the application of the term "Greek" and its significance in Byzantium, a quick read of Names of the Greeks should clarify inconsistencies, as it appears most of your views are outdated. "Greek" and "Hellene" were not religious but national terms and were used both within and outside Byzantium.
This argument is getting ridiculous. Time after time whtever "Greekness" of Byzantium is being disputed over and over again for no better reason other than that most contributors havent been bothered to read the article first. Most arguments are already presented in the article. Colossus19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Javits, thanks for your research. I think it would be great to reflect current work by leading Byzantinologists like Angeliki Laiou (Harvard), Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (Sorbonne), Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews), Averil Cameron (Oxford), Peter Charanis (†Rutgers), and so on. As you probably know by now, WP is built on the principle of Neutral Point of View, which means that we seek out "all significant published points of view" and give them "in proportion to [their] prominence". As these are the leading scholars of our time in this area, their analyses are undoubtedly most significant and prominent, as are perspectives of scholars in related fields, such as Jonathan Phillips (U. London) and Anthony Smith (LSE). Previous generations of Byzantine scholars such as Ostrogorsky and Mango (and generalists such as Toynbee) no doubt still have value today, but should be put in proper context.
What is perhaps more problematic is dealing with older work, such as Paparrigopoulos, and the "ethnocentric" "national ideology and narrative" (Hamilakis) which is still taught as school history in Greece despite attempts at reform. (see K.S. Brown and Yannis Hamilakis, eds., The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories, 2003, ISBN0-7391-0384-9, especially Hamilakis's article "'Learn History!': Antiquity, National Narrative, and History in Greek Educational Textbooks") It is probably worth discussing as part of ensuring a worldwide view, as it is still supported in parts of the Greek educational establishment (though certainly not unanimously). I suppose that in a full article on Byzantine identity, a historiographical section would have to cover other obsolete theories as well, including Fallmereyer, racial theories, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these theories suffuse other articles about Greece and the Greeks on Wikipedia.
In any case, I look forward to working constructively with you and others here to move the article forward. As you contribute well-written material based on modern sources, many editors here who will support you. --Macrakis20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I also proposed, all views must be echoed within appropriate context in an article with an established and pragmatic name. Miskin22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As an interim step I've expanded the existing section on "identity, continuity, and consciousness." Comments, corrections, and additions are of course heartily welcome. --Javits200012:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Miskin's action in completely deleting this section from the main article and copying (ghettoizing?) it to Byzanine Greeks is thoroughly inappropriate: the text that I wrote had nothing to do with "Greeks," but I am too weary and busy with other concerns to reiterate my objections. I appeal to the aid of other editors. --Javits200012:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. That title is IMO lacking (and, sorry, cries "POV fork" out loud), as it doesn't seem to cover non-Greek inhabitants of the Empire to the first reader. A renaming to something without any ethnonym would be best, be it the much-debated "Byzantine identity" or something more descriptive of the content. Reverting.
Starting tomorrow or (at the latest) early next week, I'll be able to skim Lilie on what he has to say on the topic. Good start, thanks. :) Varana12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A POV-fork is an article whose content and/or title contradicts an existing, established article (in this case the featured article Names of the Greeks). Due all the respect, putting a bunch of citations (or rather cited sentences) together in order to represent a consensus is not called contribution but propaganda. I moved the section temporarily in Byzantine Greeks, from which a further consensus can be reached. Maybe it's best to move the discussion there. As I demonstrated earlier the google test proves that "Byzantine identity" is not an issue which concerns scholarly community. The three terms "Byzantines", "Byzantine Greeks" and plain "Greeks" are used interchaengably in english-speaking sources. As I stated earlier in civilisation-based historiography, plain "Byzantine" is not at all restricted to the Byzantine Empire. Furthermore in medieval sources (mainly Latin and Slavic but also some Arabic), the 'Imperium Graecorum' and 'Graeci' are standard terms to refer to the empire and its people. Therefore an amalgam of the two terms is in my opinion the best choice to make. I tried to make some copyediting but I don't have all day to spend. I have only used one of my sources so far (which I hadn't cited in this discussion). The article should focus on the culture of the Byzantine Greek people and not just their Greco-Roman self-indentification as it does now. Miskin15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite right to remark that the text as it stands is awkwardly strung together from cited sentences; but given how contentious this subject seems to be I figured it was the best approach for the time being, lest I be accused of misinterpretation. (Who knew that the self-understanding of the Byzantines was such a hot topic? Annoying as some of the quibbles may be, they beat being tagged with 'antiquarian'!) As for propaganda ("The systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party, esp. in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instil a particular attitude or response. -- OED), I'ld be fascinated to learn which particular attitude I am endeavoring to instill, and to what end.
The relationship between google and the "scholarly community" is slight -- perhaps JSTOR might give a better impression. The Arab historians (Tabari, Baladhuri, Masudi, etc.) of course called Byzanz "Rūm," and the same term is used in later Persian sources (i.e. Ferdosi). But in any case the perception of Byzantium by foreigners is a separate issue. Byzantine culture is amply covered by the articles on Byzantine literature, Byzantine music, Byzantine art, etc. The far more restricted issue of self-understanding, identity, what you like, is not so well addressed. On the incoherence of Names of the Greeks, see my remarks on the talk page there. --Javits200015:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There's also muslim and jewish scholars calling it Yunan, but it would take me some time to dig out that source now. Maybe it would be easier to look up the definition of 'rum' in a modern Turkish dictionary. I gave it a chance but nobody was interested in fixing that section, so I moved it in Byzantine Greeks where I made an article out of random citations. You wanted a new article, you have it now. There's no point in making bad edits in a main article just to convince (or rather force) people to provide you with an article of your choice. The POV-fork and OR issue remains in the topic of your selection. The content you added was too biased, badly written and manipulative in order to remain in in any article, and it is too irrelevant and out of context in the article Byzantine Empire. I'm quite astonished to find out that other editors are willing to play along with your game, supposedly not seeing how this is just out of order. I spent a great deal of time trying to copyedit your edits and fit them into context. Miskin23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting into a revert war. But I would request an explanation of the "bias" that you perceive in the text that I contributed. What's my brief? And why, in the "copy-edited" version in "Byzantine Greeks" have all references to religious and linguistic minorities been removed? Were there now no Jews in Byzantium? --Javits200000:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If you go through my edits you'll find out that I tried hard to fit that sentence into context but I couldn't. It's perfectly sourced and correct but it just isn't relevant to what we call "Byzantines", therefore does not belong in the article. I tried to fit those languages in the "language" section, but then I realised that this is not about the "languages of the Byzantine Empire", but about the "language of the Byzantines". The Arabs, Jews and Bulgarians are people who occasionally found themselves under Byzantine rule, and were more frequently the enemies of the Byzantines, they were not by any means "Byzantines". When we speak of the "Ottomans" we don't speak about the Phanariote Greeks in the government nor the janissaries and the countless of Slavic, Greek and Arab soldiers in the military, we speak about the "Ottoman Turks", or Turkish-speaking Ottomans if you prefer. Even in our modern times, when we speak of "the French" we are not referring to the massive Arabic "minority" of the country. It's really a simple concept. The bias is the fact that you put together many unrelated sentences in order to manipulate their meaning and make it seem as if there's a question about what you call "Byzantine identity". You didn't care of contributing, you only cared about getting your own article, even if that involved causing damage to an existing established article. Now would you mind moving the discussion to the other article? The content in question has been moved anyway so there's no reason to harrass this one anymore. Miskin00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is precisely that it's been moved, to an article to which hardly anything links ( a few user pages, "Turkish people" and "Muscovite manorialism"). And as a result all reference to the multi-ethnic nature of the empire, including that which pre-existed my contibution (the quote from Ahrweiler's Europeans), has been removed -- which is a problem for the main article. Since you've mentioned it, it's instructive to compare the wiki entry for the Ottoman Empire-- which includes, under religion, discussion of the Greek Orthodox, Jewish, and Armenian Orthodox millets; an intelligent discussion of the millet system and ethnic difference in general under "Concept of Nation"; and two references to the role of the Phanariotes. And in fact, while Ottomanists have political burdens of their own, Byzantinists tend to envy them in this respect -- there is really no equivalent to the ideological pressure to make Byzantium into Ἑλλάς Ἑλλήνων Χριστιανῶν.
I hope that others will understand the seriousness of this issue. As for myself, I really must bow out for a few days, as this controversy has forced me to neglect a stack of texts that lie on my desk, waiting to be translated. --Javits200011:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It will have more links if we redirected there 'Byzantines', and started finally making a distinction between 'Byzantine' and 'Eastern Roman' Emperors. On the other hand the word 'multi-ethnic', despite its irrelevant context, appears more than once in the article (makes it almost look biased). I tried not to remove any of your references, I just moved them around in order to fit them in context and remove their quotes. I thought I just explained above why an article about "Byzantines" doesn't have room for the religious and cultural minorities of the Byzantine Empire. Such a section would belong in an article dealing with the demography of the Byzantine Empire, or maybe a section in the main article. If you're able to fit those demographic references into context in Byzantine Empire then that's fine by me. Of course it should be done only for the sake of contribution in order to fit into the main article. Simlarly if there was an article "Ottoman Turks" or "Ottomans", I wouldn't find it correct to speak about Greeks or Jews and Slavs there, even if their contributions in the empire's economy and government were of extreme importance. Since you mention it, I should let you know that it was me who made most (if not all) of those edits that you just praised in Ottoman Empire (you can through the edit history if you like). Of course I never came up with section names such as "concept of nation", this was added later. It was me however who introduced the extremely important role of different religious groups in the empire, and the Ottomans' capabiliting of making use of them. Same for the references of Phanariotes and their role in the Empire's economy and politics (yet I would never claim that they were 'Ottomans'). If it weren't for me none of this wouldn't have been there now, and I can tell you I had a real rough time establishing it, therefore what you just claimed about Byzantinists and Ottomanists becomes moot. On the contrary, Ottomanists do not have to deal with amateur western chauvinism, which uses the logic "if something worthwhile doesn't belong to me, then it shouldn't belong to anybody" (see J. Fallmerayer for details). I guess the western amateur scholarship is less interested in them - I found that out on my own while I was editing the Ottoman-related articles. The editors there, prior to my intervention, were as imbalanced as some editors here, only except in the opposite direction. A look in the article would make you think that all Sultans were the ancestors of Kemal Ataturk, and there was no neutral editors to even care about it. I tried to balance the article to some extent, by starting sections on important topics. If I were using the criteria proposed in here, I should have tried to eliminate all connections to Turks whatsoever. I guess the reason it hasn't been attempted yet is because nobody seem to care about that civilisation, and not because double standards do not exist. Finally, I never claimed nor tried to pass in the article that Byzantium was synonymus to "Christian Hellas" (despite the ironic fact that contemporary Westeners viewed as such, as well as Byzantines of the late period). Such accusations are borderline offensive. My goal is to establish a pragmatic balance on wikipedia's perception of Byzantines and Byzantium, based on modern historical sources and their medieval citations. This is exactly what I did for the Ottoman Empire, and there I had received similar resistance. All sides must be given equal weight, and the reader should be able to understand exactly why those people are often called Romans, often Greeks, and often Byzantines. This will be achieved only when editors of Byzantine-related articles start using the same criteria that are being used everywhere else in wikipedia (unfortunately most of them don't). Having participated in the editing of other similar topics, I'm really saddened to find out that double standards and bias exist at such a degree in this one. Miskin15:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I find this "discussion" (if one could call Miskin conjuring up strawmen and beating them with wild exaggerations as to the intent of other editors a "discussion") more and more ridiculous. No one wants to eliminate Greeks from Byzantium. I fail to see where that is even hinted at in the slightest. The whole point of the debate and the new article where I wanted to contribute was to have to differentiate what it means when we say "Byzantines". Of course, Jews have no place in an article on "Byzantine Greeks". One should not forget, however, that it was Miskin alone who insisted on calling the article that. Create a new article; ban all other views there; and then redefine what is meant by the new article and delete. Nice tactic. (That's also the reason why I am reluctant to discuss this there. I am happy to move the discussion when I see that the reason for the new article (whatever its name) is not to remove unwanted views to a backcorner, but to discuss all views in the topic in necessary depth.) A "pragmatic balance"? My god, where in the world is "there were no Byzantines except Greeks" called "balanced"?
In one sentence it says "multi-ethnic" and in another "national identity is a 19th century concept". But then the reference to minorities is removed with the reason that they "were subjected peoples, not Byzantines"? Give me a break. After a while, we call every Roman citizen a "Roman", wherever in the Empire he came from (Miskin: that also with regard to your comments on my talk page). Libanios was a "Roman", as was Dio Cassius, or Trajan, or Ausonius, or Augustinus, or Elagabal, or Septimius Severus (who is said to have had difficulties speaking Latin). A "Byzantine" is a subject of the Byzantine Empire. Who the subjects of that empire were, is what interests me in that topic. Under Zenon, a group of Isaurians dominated the government. Herakleios' family probably had Armenian roots. The majority in Byzantine Ravenna certainly was not Greek. To call the Egyptian population "Greeks", stretches the term beyond recognition.
To salvage discussion and work: I agree that we could maybe come to a better solution by drawing a line between late antique and medieval Byzantium, maybe with the reign of Herakleios' dynasty. So that we could have the following structure:
some sentences on the Roman inheritance, a truly world-spanning empire.
a short discussion of the effects of the invasions during the 7th century and the loss not only of Egypt and Syria, but also of North Africa, Spain, (most of) Italy, the Balkans.
a discussion of the self-perception as Greek and "Roman", with comments on the difference between modern and medieval "nations", and the development of something like a national identity.
a section on minorities within the Empire.
Oh, and call it something other than "Byzantine Greeks".
You're up to Original Research again by inventing alleged scholarly questions. There's no academic concern such as the "Byzantine identity". I didn't invent 'Byzantine Greeks', it was there as a disambiguation page and I used it as an article in order to reduce the main one. This discussion is getting repetitive and tiresome. I've already proved that according to both modern and medieval sources it is evident that there was a "Byzantine people" in a cultural sense - and as Britannica defines it - "seemingly Greek". That means a Greek or Hellenized citizen of the Empire. That fact that Heraclius or Basil I might have had an "Armenian origin", doesn't mean they were Armenians, as their families were long Hellenized. So no, Jews and Slavs have no place in the article on "Byzantines", insisting that they do is just applying double standards again. Byzantines, Greeks and Byzantine Greeks are used by scholars interchangeably, it's not my fault if you haven't read many english books on the topic. Maybe the fact that people are so confused on terminology justifies my choice of 'Byzantine Greeks' as the article's name. Those are simple concepts and the fact that you can't accept them justifies my views on double standards, bias and yes, the lack of a pragmatic balance. Most of the things you suggested are already treated in Byzantine Greeks, have a look for yourself. As for the title's name, we have to agree on a certain terminology. It must be understood (or agreed) that there's no "Greek" ethnic group per say in Byzantium, there's only a Greek culture, masked under and synonymous to "Romios", containing anything Greek/Hellenic or Hellenized element within the empire. Therefore in medieval times, a "Byzantine" is a Greek or Hellenized inhabitant of Byzantium. See the Britannica 2006 definition that I posted above, and Ostrogorsky's line between the Eastern Roman and the Medieval Greek Empire. I won't be interested in opposing views unless it's the direct meaning of a citation (and not its liberal interpretation). Once we have agreed to that, we could start deciding on the name. The discussion must be moved by the way, there's no reason to continue harassing this article. Miskin17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
He [Eustathius] noted the usual accommodations of local people with the occupying forces. Some of his most bitter comments were directed against the Jews and especially the Armenians for the way they profited from and gloried in the disaster that had overtaken the Greeks...He noted the lack of respect shown by the Latins for the church services of the Greeks
Do you think for example that in this citation that the author citing Eustathius is using "Greeks" to refer to anything else other than the Byzantines? Miskin18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This is still going on? Miskin that quote doesn't help much. During the Crusades all Crusaders were dubbed Franks or Latins by all local scribes and historians. Does that mean they were Frankish or Latin? No, that means they were Catholic.--Eupator18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, but it proves that Jews and Armenians were 'not' regarded as "Greeks" or "Romans" or in any case as "Byzantines". Maybe for the reasons that they wouldn't be regarded as "Latins". That's what I'm trying to say in response to people who say that "Byzantine" (Greek in religious context), can be Jewish, Armenian, Slavic, and anything within the Empire besides Hellenized people. It can only be Hellenized, Greek Orthodox people. Miskin18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that. Also keep in mind that many of the Hellenized Orthodox Armenians kept their Armenian names. Look at how many people there are with the name Narses, Bardas, Smbat etc. even family names like Kourkouas. To be a Romanoi one had to speak Greek and be Greek Orhodox. No Jews or other Christians.--Eupator18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is this supposed to prove? There's no contrast between ioudaioi/armenioi and rhwmaioi drawn in the text. I should think that any of the sources that I adduced from contemporary, synthetic accounts of Byzantine identity would have been more useful, but no, we're arguing about Eustathius. Good night. --Javits200018:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You suggesting again to make original research but I won't play along. I cited the conclusions of an established author (Angold's "Church and society in Byzantium under the Comeni"), I wasn't making up my own. We cannot know if his conslusions were based on the specific citation, or maybe on a different part such as e.g. "Οἱ δὲ ἐξώλεις Ἀρμένιοι λέγεται καὶ καταμιαίνειν ἡμῖν τοὺς ἄρτους"[same ed. p 126 l. 11]. For what I know Angold's drew his conclusions from the entire text. Miskin22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite tiring to read all this long discussion, but i had to do so... For start, two comments by Javits2000 attracted my attention: the perception of Byzantium by foreigners is a separate issue: so, no matter the Byzantine Greeks saying that they are "children of the Greeks" and no matter how the foreigners of that time called them... All that matters is to insert anything that disconnects the Byzantines from the Greeks (or that minimizes the greek character of the empire)... Have i understood well? the second one is the greek phrase u've used: to make Byzantium into Ἑλλάς Ἑλλήνων Χριστιανῶν: since u know the phrase, i bet u know that this was the motto of the dictatorship (1967-1974). a really unlucky comment, which i do not want to accept as a personal attack...
The whole issue is getting ridiculous... Would it be much of a problem to create an article Byzantine Armenians or Byzantine Jews for those ethnic groups? and then, place them all in the category 'Byzantine citizenship'... And, sorry for once more, but i cannot help it making comparisons with other empires and nations: I insist that if an article 'Byzantine Identity' will be created, similar articles should be created for all the other empires. If some users tend to believe that the Byzantine Empire was not "greek enough", cause of the armenian, jewish and other minorities, i am expecting them to also support the also unhistorical view that the German Empire was not "german enough", cause of the large Czech and Polish minorities, not to mention that the Prussians were originally non-Germans... So, "clearly" the German Empire was a Baltic one...! In addition, the trap in which many wikipedians fall in order to support a supposed vastly non-greek character of the empire, is really laughable! they throw 5-7 armenian or other names and they think this is enough?! give me a break, please! the Armenians had a prominent role in the empire, and contributed a lot in it, but other times they also fought against it. Would anyone say that modern Britain is not British? but it is more multicultural than the Byzantine Empire ever was... Its kings and queens for the last 2 centuries belong to a german dynasty... prominent british were not that "british" (Paul Reuter, Peter Ustinov, for more see here). i do not know where this strong will to eliminate or minimize the Greek character of Byzantium comes from, but be sure that such ahistorical tactics and practices can be followed for every single past/present/future empire/nation-state/federation/kingdom existed/exists or will ever exist on earth... Regards Hectorian19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I should absolutely apologize for deploying the motto of the junta. I maintain that it is a literally accurate description of the article into which Miskin would sideline the discussion of byz. identity (a Greece of Greek Christians, i.e. "Jews and Slavs have no place in the article on 'Byzantines'"); and the tactics which he employed in doing so ("the vote is off"; wholesale deletion of a previously existing section of the main article and placement of this new text in an article to which no one had agreed) gave rise to a fit of pique. But it was thoroughly inappropriate of me to raise the, in this context irrelevant, specter of a period in which my own country played a sorry role.
My concern is not "to insert anything that disconnects the Byzantines from the Greeks (or that minimizes the greek character of the empire)." It is rather to be very careful about using a term that today has a primarily ethnic connotation to describe a society in which the criteria of "belonging" were not at all ethnic. I have no particular interest in describing the actual ethnic composition of the Byzantine Empire -- in fact I think it's not possible to do so, and the effort generally only leads to crackpot theories (for example, and since he's been mentioned, Fallmerayer). To my mind an accurate description of the bonds that did in fact unite the empire (the Greek language, esp. after Heraclius; orthodox Christianity, especially after Justinian; and in all periods, allegiance to imperial authority) would be a useful contribution to the main article. It is also important to recognize that these bonds were not hard and fast (i.e. there was no citizenship test in Byzantium); and that, whether out of tolerance or indifference, certain, and sometimes very wide, degrees of difference were tolerated.
This was the picture that I attempted to present in the text that I contributed to the main article, in an attempt to flesh out what had been previously just a quote from Ahrweiler and a reference to late Byzantine hellenism. But I would much rather that the previous version be returned, than to see the section completely removed.
I should perhaps clarify that when I speak of "identity" I don't mean it in the crude sense, as if there were some question of a new answer ("A ha! The Byzantines were actually Phoenecian!") but in the sense in which it is used in academic discourse today, i.e. how did the Byzantines understand themselves? In what terms did they construct their own identity? In that sense, although the idea of individual articles on minorities is an interesting idea, I'm not sure it's necessary. For an idea of what I do think is a useful introduction to the subject at hand, I would again recommend Cameron's new _The Byzantines_, which is searchable on Amazon and therefore easily accessible. --Javits200020:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I read your version, and i must say i find it very well-written and interesting. Though, IMO, needs some work. 'cause it seems to give to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities more place than it should give. furthermore, u do not mention that the terms 'Romaios' and 'Hellene' became synonymous at some point, and thus, the "others" were considered "foreighners" or just "different". the opening comment that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic one, is just a pleonasm. and also the sentence concerning regionalism (in whatever sense) is not suitable for an empire centered in the imperial city Constantinople, to which every thema obeyed, at least the greek-speaking ones, such as western anatolia and pontus, as implied. Feudalism never actually existed in Byzantium, and when it began, it did not manage to prevail (cause of the common threat). Lastly, the public "persona" edit seems as if the Byzantines followed any sort of forced hellinization, and that those who spoke other language were forbidden to do so in public (i may be wrong, though, in the definition of the phrase 'public persona'). In conclusion, a clear and quite long paragraph should be added concerning the roots of the byzantine civilisation, culture, language, and religious cults (in some extend), and all those were stemming principally by ancient and hellenistic Greece. i do not mean to remove the roman, armenian and other influences, but at least we should give to the greek element the credit it deserves in this section. what do u think? Hectorian21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well of course this is precisely the conversation that I would rather have had from the outset.
How much discussion of minority groups is too much? As has already been mentioned, the article on the Ottoman Empire already includes dicussions of the Greek, Jewish, and Armenian minorities therein.
I am not aware that Rhwmaois and 'Ellhn ever did become synonomous, but if you have a reference on it, then good enough.
Would stating simply that "The Byzantine Empire was multi-ethnic " still be a pleonasm -- "the use of more words (or even word-parts) than necessary to express an idea clearly"? I'm not sure it could be pared down much further than that.
Regionalism -- both regional pride and its obverse, hostility to outsiders, including those from other parts of the empire -- was a genuine and significant phenomenon, and my remarks on it were well sourced. You can't argue it away with generalizations about military administration, which fall under the topic of political allegiance, addressed elsewhere in my text. Nowhere have I suggested that there was a feudal system. Students of Byz. history know well never to use the f-word, lest they be assigned hundreds of pages of Soviet scholarship to summarize for seminar.
The line about public persona is a direct quote of a concise formulation by two contemporary Byz. historians of what it meant to be Rhwmaios. I can't imagine how it can be read to imply a ban on the use of certain languages in public. The question is of how one became successful -- and it wasn't by speaking Norse.
I couldn't agree more Hectorian. The "special criteria" used for this topic are a double standard and a clear violation of the NPOV policy, and it should not be left unattended. Criteria applied on similar articles should apply here and vice versa. Miskin22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So I guess it's all my fault, Miskin the anti-semite fascist who "deleted" Javits' noble contributions in the Byzantine article, and denies that the Jews can be regarded as "Byzantines". Isn't that a little too convenient? Your edits were a bunch of unrelated, cited sentences put together in order to manipulate their meaning. You admitted yourself that it was badly written, yet you never justified why you never took your time for it. I guess you wanted to hurry up for some reason. You were willing to harm the article "Byzantine Empire" in order to force people into giving you a POV-fork, double-standard article "Byzantine identity". That what your "contribution" was about. I _moved_ it at a different place in order to protect this article from your caprices. I removed the refernce on minority cultures because doesn't fit in an article "Byzantines" or "Byzantine Greeks". You can start articles on Byzantine Jews, Slavs, Armenians etc, but default name 'Byzantines', the Ρωμηοί, doesn't include them, and this is something I know by sources, logic and personal life. Stop bringing up the Ottoman Empire as an example, I know very well how it treats the subject because I've edited that article. When you keep repeating something that I have already treated in detail, it makes me think that you're either not reading my edits or that your bias forces you to ignore them. The Armenians, Greeks and Jews of the Ottoman Empire are mentioned in the article "Ottoman Empire", not in the article "Ottomans" or "Ottoman Turks". I would never agree to include them there. Do you or do you not agree that by "Ottomans" we don't mean their subject peoples? It should be done the same about Byzantines. You can add the text (or rather 'sentence') that I removed in the article Byzantine Empire, or an article about Peoples of the Byzantine Empire but not in an article about Byzantines or Byzantine Greeks. Miskin15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally, the fact alone that Medieval Greek was called "Romaika" or "Romaiika" (translated as 'Romaic' or 'Roman'), is suffiecient to prove a point. If you can prove that other languages of the empire were also called "Roman", then you're back in the game. Miskin15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Byzantines
I think it's lovely that you contributed sections on minorities to the main article on the Ottoman Empire. What I can't understand is why you removed the references to the same from the main article on the Byzantine Empire. My contribution was not, in my admittedly prejudiced opinion, poorly written. It merely held closely to the text of the sources to avoid the inevitable accusation of mis-reading; hardly worth the effort, since the accusation was raised in any case. But again, I would like at least to see the section that existed before my contribution returned to the main article (Ahrweiler's formulation from "The Europeans" + the "Sun King"). Is that agreeable? --Javits200015:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved it because we had already agreed to remove that section of the article and not to expand it with irrelevant information within quotes. I removed later one paragraph on cultural minorities for the same reason that I would remove similar information from an article (or section) dealing with "Ottoman identity" aka "Ottomans" aka "Ottoman Turks". But you can restore it, within context, in Byzantine Empire or a separate article anytime you want. I don't know how many more times I'll have to explain that. Miskin16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind leave. Not to sound peckish, but you'll understand if I'm reluctant to have another go at present. The good faith gesture would be -- well, but if you have to name it, it's not good faith anymore, is it? --Javits200019:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am glad the question of Byzantine identity has been hotly debate. The arguments presented reinforced my idea that Empire was not Greek but multi-ethnic. I lament the offensive tonne some of you use. Let's keep the debate on ideas base not personal offences.
Ongoing changes to Byzantine Empire maps + change from pink to (Imperial) purple
I thought I'd best remind everyone that the maps of this article are being improved and replaced, according to the agreement that was made beween Flamarande, Varana, Dryzen, Geuiwogbil and myself on this talk page with regard to maps some time ago. Today I aim to have all my big Byzantine Empire maps replaced with newer versions which include the cities of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. At the time of writing, I have added 3 new improved maps already, and will shortly be adding 2 more as I complete them.
If you have any ideas or questions about the maps of this article, or would like to make a request for a new map, feel free to ask here. Bigdaddy120416:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The updating of all my Byzantine Empire maps is now done. However, there are several more things that need doing. Firstly, we need to decide which of the two following maps should be used to illustrate the year 476AD:
Either
,
OR
Which image would you prefer? Please indicate your preference below. Or, if you would prefer a new map to be created, combining aspects of both, please say so. Thanks Bigdaddy120417:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Choosing between the two maps above I would choose BigDaddy's map; 1st) it has the cities (major point), 2nd) the name of the seas are written down (Black S. and Medi S.). But to be truly honest, I think that an inclusion of the WRE is also worthy. BUT DON'T improve your map yet, depending upon the colour issue below and the results. If the majority agrees with purple, then you (and anyone else who is willling and knows how to do it) may have to change the maps (from pink to purple). But hey, if this is too much work we can keep pink (I like purple better, but then I am not doing the work here as I don't know how to improve maps :). Flamarande18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a clue if the following proposal makes sense to you all (I allready talked with BigDaddy about it and he seems to agree with it), and it is only a proposal; if you don't agree with it simply be honest (I rather apreciate honesty). Everywhere I look, I see the Byzantine Empire in purple. Maps inside of books, computer games (e.g. Rome Total War Barbarian Invasion), book-covers, etc. Even in this article; the main colour is purple (or am I somehow seeing things?). As far as I know that colour had strong Imperial conotations. Only the Emperor could clothe himself entirely in purple. Those who were born in the Purple chamber, etc. And somehow that colour became the colour of the BE. But the maps are in pink!
current colour
We could change the colours of the maps of the article. The exact shade of purple I propose to use is the one above being used for the WRE. Therefore I hereby propose the following: "Change from pink to purple, yea or nay? Please give your answer below (and please don't start a debate about it :)" Flamarande17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to give a further example, the proposed change would result in the maps looking like this:
It has been suggested that Venice be added to the later maps. I am ready to do this, but any comments on the maps would be welcome... Bigdaddy120412:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I sugested that change :), but my reasons are sound: Ravenna simply lost its importance around 850 AD and Venice slowly gained in importance and power until becoming a regional power of major importance. Flamarande16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposed new infobox
As part of WikiProject Former countries, we have developed Template:Infobox Former Country for use by all former entities: for anything from empires to colonies. I have made a Byzantine version of the infobox based on what you have done here. The infobox also automatically assigns the page to a number of categories. For further information about the infobox, please see the Instructions.
If you have any questions or comments about the infobox (it is still in development so some features are a little sensitive), please ask. Since you have made a dedicated infobox for this article, I decided to set up a draft infobox rather than just replace what you have done - I'll leave that up to you.
I see that there are other specific infobox templates for other Empires (Roman, West Roman, etc.). New infoboxes using the Former Country Infobox can also be made for these. - 52 Pickup10:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Mistake at 1025, & was the restoration under the Palaiologi a 'dead cat bounce'?
I couldn't help but notice the error in the timeline - "Death of Basil II - decline of Byzantine empire begins". This is not true. The Byzantine empire went on to conquer more lands in Armenia, in northern Mesopatamia (Edessa) and the empire did not decline until the crushing defeat at Manzikert. That was the decline. Although the Byzantines lost a great emperor, it was not the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.227.129.254 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel I Komnenos, c.1180Map of the Byzantine Empire c.1270. Considering its failure to restore the empire to Komnenian proportions, was the Palaiologan restoration a 'dead cat bounce'?
I believe it was John Julius Norwich who placed the decline of the empire as beginning with the death of Basil II. There is an article about this at Decline of the Byzantine Empire, which deals with the many different dates suggested by historians as the start of the decline. The problem is, the decline was not continuous, but rather occurred in brief but dramatic stages, separated by periods of recovery that sometimes lasted 100 years (eg the Komnenian restoration, 1081-1180). Personally, I think it fair to place the origins of the decline somewhere between 1025 - 1070, since the empire had already weakened somewhat before Manzikert - indeed, you could say the battle itself was merely an effect, rather than the cause, of the empire's decline. That said, the aftermath of the battle and ensuing civil wars in turn caused a massive decline in the strength of the empire, which was never entirely reversed. Still, due to the successes of the Komnenoi, it is possible to argue that the empire was still recognizably the Eastern Roman Empire until the late 12th century, and that therefore the real permanent decline should be dated from c.1180 or 1185.
Whether we are to regard the brief restoration under the Palaiologi as a dead cat bounce or not is open to discussion, but I personally would say the empire stopped being a major world power in 1204. Bigdaddy120418:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think so too. In fact, if i am not wrong, most historians and important figures (e.g. the late Pope) did/do consider 1204 the year after which the Byzantine Empire began to decline. The other dates that have been proposed at different periods, are marked by important events, but none of them was as important and had so deep in time and disastrous for the empire effects. Hectorian21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Granted Romanos did not lose the empire's status overnight. But it wasn't from the day Basil II died, because the empire made a few territorial acquisitions afterwards. On another note, there wasn't really a Palaiologi restoration -its a matter of one weak empire (Nicaea) overthrowing an even weaker one (Latin empire). Tourskin04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Manzikert was not so much an effect of the collapse. Don't forget, the Byzantines were able to defeat the Rus in 1043 and the fact that they were campaigning as far as Armenia at 1071 suggests that they're domain was large. The fact that Alp Arslan abandoned Manzikert suggests not just cunning but caution.Tourskin19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Legacy section
Legacy section of this article contains a major POV. Although the Byzantian Empire influenced the Ottoman Empire heavily, the article fails to mention that but it claims it influenced the "European civilisation", an influence I gather, not as well documented as the influence on the Ottomans. BTW, the term "European civilisation" seems to me a bit vague, see Culture of EuropeFilanca12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me as an interesting point. In architecture, at least, the Ottomans, alongside the Tsars, could be seen as the most important successors of Byzantium. I'm less well versed in Ottoman administration and economy, but I recall that Hendy was able to reconstruct quite a bit of the Byzantine system by reading back through Ottoman records, which would seem to imply some significant continuity. As for Byzantium, "the only stable state in Europe during the Middle Ages": is that not both hyperbolic and geographically inaccurate? --Javits200015:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
By 'successors' you must mean 'influenced cultures'. Byzantine art and culture were based on the Eastern Orthodox (later Greek Orthodox) faith and not on a political independence. In Greek Orthodox tradition, Byzantine art never fell out of use. Miskin20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm backing up those edits, but what do you think about the link between the sack of Constantinople and the Italian renaissance? Had Greek intellectual not taught in Europe, Classical studies would have been confined to the Greek Orthodox church. The west didn't have any knowledge of Greek nor any Latin translations of major Classical works. All of this was introduced along with the migration of Greeks intellectuals to Italy, which was the result of the sack of Constantinople. Knowing that Columbus used Strabo as his primary source in geography, I suppose the fall of Byzantium (both in 1204 and 1453) had a significant impact on the course of western civilisation. I think that this kind of information deserves to be mentioned. In the meantime, some parts of the 'heritage' section could definitely use some rewording. Miskin18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, the importance of late Byzantine scholars in transmitting Greek literature to Italy & beyond is indisputable, and a fascinating story. I have no problem with the idea of a significant Byzantine influence on European culture and society. The point is rather that there was also a significant influence on the Islamic world. There one could begin long before 1453 -- for example, with the Abbasid translation movement, which seems to have relied at least in part by texts acquired from the Byzantines. --Javits200018:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Vote on Byzantine Empire Maps (please)
Having been underwhelmed by the level of interest in this topic earlier, the time has come for a different approach.
Flamarande has proposed that the Byzantine Empire be changed from pink to purple (see image, right) in all the maps of this article. I invite you all to Support or Object to the proposal now, in the hope that some of you are willing to help us improve the article in a constructive way, instead of endlessly arguing over the 'names of the Byzantines' and other such things.
Supporting and objecting
If you support Flamarande's proposal, write *Support followed by your reason(s). If you oppose the proposal, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow others the opportunity to do this themselves. To provide constructive input on the proposition without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *Comment followed by your advice.
Once again, I beseech you, please take the time to vote. Without your comments, it is starting to feel like this page is dead... Bigdaddy120413:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I like Byzantine purple, but I think the real "imperial" purple we'd want is more like that reddish purple described on the Purple page, e.g.
I tend to agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. It would be better to have the imperial colour for the empire in the map. I suppose the lighter one would be perfect. IMHO, the darker one would be ungly, compared to the yellow-like for non-byzantine territories, i mean it would immediately attract readers' attention, focusing on the Byzantine territories, instead of looking at the position of the Empire on the map. Hectorian04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ditto. The idea of using imperial purple is a fine one, but it ought to look a bit more like Justinian's robe in San Vitale, i.e. as per Fut. Perf.'s first suggestion:
Only that for reasons of optimal readability and balance we'd probably not want it to be too dark, would we? And anyway, we're not talking about the emperor's robes or shoes here, just about the territory he's supposed to be treading on, so a little bit diluted purple would seem okay... :-) Fut.Perf.☼14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise about readability - it's hard to read the names of the cities if we make it too dark. However it does seem that you want something a little stronger than the slightly blueish colour I have provided on the right. Am I right? Bigdaddy120414:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I also agree with the issue of readability - the Imperial purple is simply too dark as one wants to see the names of the cities clearly. I quite like the colour in this map it's not too agressive upon ones eyes but I have nothing against another shade of purple.
Everywhere I look, I see the Byzantine Empire in purple. Maps inside of books, computer games (e.g. Rome Total War Barbarian Invasion), book-covers, etc. Even in this article; the main colour is purple (or am I somehow seeing things?). As far as I know that colour had strong Imperial conotations. Only the Emperor could clothe himself entirely in purple. Those who were born in the Purple chamber, etc. And somehow that colour became the colour of the BE. I think that any shade of purple is a better colour for the BE than the current ("My little Poney") pink. Flamarande16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Quite right about readability -- my art historian's zeal got the better of me and I forgot about the practical concerns of modern design. Still, the "slightly bluish colour" on the sample map reads to me as, well, blue, so that the desired semiotic valence is lost. So yes, something with a little more red might make the point better. (Of course the echt-imperial effect would be gold text on a rich purple ground -- but in practice that would probably just look ridiculous.) --Javits200021:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak oppose. The pink seems to match the background better, and the purple is too close to the colour of the line around the oceans. Something else, shouldnt Carthage be removed from the later maps post 700, wasnt it destroyed in the muslim conquest? --Astrokey4423:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support The colour may not exactly match true imperial purple but it is pleasing on the eye and looks effective. Roydosan10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment As a middle-way solution I support the light-blue colour proposed by Bigdaddy. It beats pink and doesn't cause readability problems. Miskin12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thankyou all for your responses. It's good to see everyone getting involved constructively. :) Over the past couple of days, I have been experimenting with the maps, in an attempt to try out different colours, especially different forms of purple. However, I have come up against problems with these experiments. It is possible to change all the maps to the colour of the sample map. It is possible to change at least one of the maps to a new, darker 'imperial' purple colour. Yet, due to what appears to be a problem with my software, I have been unable to change certain of the maps to this different 'imperial' form of purple. These problems mean that I am currently unable to get closer to imperial purple than the sample map provided above. I apologise for this unforeseen difficulty, and I feel I must now offer you some new options:
1). We change all the maps to the gentle purple colour present in the sample map
2). We leave the maps as they are, until perhaps a way can be found to make them full imperial purple
3). We leave the maps "my little pony" pink forever
Please indicate which of the above options you would prefer, or if you have a suggestion that I have not mentioned, you are welcome to introduce it. Bigdaddy120417:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After carefull consideration I vote for Nr 1. Imperial purple is simply too dark (or it would be fine by me) and pink is ... I simply don't like pink, and think that purple is a better colour for the Byzantine Empire, period. Flamarande13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, pardon the late inclusion certain events are presently keeping me away from my Wikiengagements. The imperial colour does fit best to represent the empire. But as oft mentioned, the map may require a colour overall to take in the reddish purple. Of course using transparentcies this could be worked over. What software to you use to render these maps? I'll get back to Bigdaddy1204's last proposal in a few moments.--Dryzen13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a rapid coloration testing using ArcGIS 9.1 software, the colour is 102,2,60 RGB or Imperial Purple with 35% transparentcy. I tried to mimic the backgroound colour but not knowing its RGB composition I got a rough equivalant. Considering I only digitized the Byzantine empire itself and anot the suround topogrpahy the hydrograhy is missing. It does though give us an idea of waht we can do depending on software. With a little trial and error work on the transparency I htink it will work out fine. Maybe a little work on the background coloration as well...--Dryzen14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The colour seems a bit diffrent (softer) from the samples above. But please, try putting a name inside your map. Will the name still be visible without difficulty? If it still is then your colour is fine by me, if not... Flamarande01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's one with the basic label option. The transparency is only placed on the Byzantine empire layer, therefore the names shouldn't be affected. This later fucntion is why the colour is softer than the base 102,2,60. This was simply to show that with transparency implaced we can keep imperial purple and still have an auxialiary map that dosen't steal our attention or is harsh on the eyes. I dont have the time to redraw the maps, nor do I think it necessairy, Bigdaddy1204 and varana have a done great jobs. An other minus is that since this is geomatic software I'dd have to digitize or build from scratch every layer of information and have keep these topologicaly correct. --Dryzen14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
note: about the font, the lettering is at 8 on the original, wich is 10cm x 15 cm. The annotatiosn can also have a mask, an outline of lighter colour ot contrast the background, thus expose the lettering more easily --Dryzen14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the map I managed to change:
If I can change any of the others, I will let you know shortly. I am impressed by Dryzen's new maps - what software did you use to make them? They look more sophisticated than my own efforts, which are made using Microsoft Pain (a primitve software!) Bigdaddy120416:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sofisiticated indeed, I was able to use ArcGIS 9.1 to produce these maps. Problem is this is catogrpahic software and not CAD, therefore I can't draw anything palpable without layering and following some norms. But once that painstakign work is done (not to mention filling up some spacially referenced Databases) it's make some nice maps and rapidly as well, shows up the statistics from the DB in mutiple ways. The Byzanitne layer is not anchored right now, so I can't show it on the world, but I've been fillign it up with some information in my spare time (wich is rather depleted of late).Glade you liked it.--Dryzen19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the discussion above, I have produced and added to the article a new batch of maps in the 'gentle purple' colour. The next step would be to now concentrate on the possibility of upgrading to full imperial purple. What are your thoughts? Bigdaddy120414:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thumbs up as well. Good idea on keeping or adding some pink to outline the coastal borders. These maps are made directly on the images imported into your Paint software?--Dryzen18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Constantinopel" typo
I think they look great, and the purple can be left as is. I noticed, however, that the picture of the Empire c. 1400 has a small typo, labelling the city as "Constantinopel" instead of "Constantinople". I don't think this is the fault of Bigdaddy or the original map-maker, as it is easy enough to overlook, but while we're changing the maps it might be good to correct any misspellings in the process. Thanks :-) --Grimhelm20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Motto
Could somebody fill me in on this Byz. "motto" as listed in the infobox: Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων? It's awfully catchy, but I notice that there's a "citation requested" flag beside it -- and certainly I've never seen it in any Byz. political or historical text. In fact I would have said that there was no "Byzantine motto." So if there is a source for this, I'ld love to learn about it; and if there isn't, perhaps it should be removed. --Javits200012:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It was actually the motto of the Palaeologi - the last and longest-lived Imperial dynasty of the Empire. Since their emblem is used in this article as the imperial emblem, it makes sense to use their motto too. The "flag of the late Empire" shown in the box is based on this motto:
"four outward-facing 'B's or in the quarters, interpreted to stand for the imperial motto… transliterated as Basileus Basileon, Basileuon Basileuonton ("King of Kings, Ruling Over Rulers")." (See Palaeologi)
OK -- but the account in the Palaeologi article is also unsourced; and the google search turns up a lot of clones of the wiki entry, but nothing else, at a quick glance, that appears more firmly grounded. It just looks a bit like "folk etymology" to me (that impersonal "interpreted to stand for" in the Palaeologi article gives me pause -- interpreted by whom?) -- but my professional concern is admittedly limited to the pre-1204 empire, and I haven't spent much time with the Palaeologan sources. --Javits200013:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I realise it is unsourced, and a further inspection of the article history reveals the motto was first added by User:Adam Bishop when he started the article. I have requested a citation from him here, and hopefully he will be able to provide the elusive citation. --Grimhelm16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I've run a TLG search for occurrences of the first three words (Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων) directly, or even somewhat close, together, and came up with nothing. Now of course not all Byz. lit. has been entered into TLG; but it is suggestive that the "Byzantine motto" so prominently touted at the top of this article appears nowhere in the major historical & political texts. Would anyone object to removing it until a source can be found? If we absolutely need a motto, we could always lift an acclamation from the De ceremoniis. --Javits200018:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be removed if we cannot find a source, but I did some more searching through the history of this article. What I found was that it was added here on 3 July 2005. Now, this postdates Adam Bishop's addition, so I hope we don't have the two sources "bouncing" off each other, but I think this time we may have the right editor. He seems to have been somewhat active recently (although I have a feeling we could be waiting a few days for a reply). Anyway, I have left the same message here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimhelm (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Same as Javits2000, my expertise is 284-1081, can't help yet on Palaeologi. Got a few new books but no time to read them. I'll pay more attention on this as I read around, if I find anything I'll post. As long as we keep the remouved information somewhere (for quick reinsertion should the need arise) I see nothing wrong with removing it. --Dryzen15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for new subchapter
I see that the current article has subcahpters regarding the economy, religion, architecture, etc, but surprisingly, it hasn't one regarding demographics! Shouldn't it? It could also include a list of peoples of the Byzantine Empire, ordered alphabetically, something like this: Albanians, Armenians, Greeks, Isaurians, Slavs, etc...Mursili20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We already had this argument - see further up. I agree with you that this needs to be covered but good luck persuading some of the editors on here - you'll need it. Roydosan00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no possible objection against adding an alphabetical list, as suggested, under a subheading such as "Peoples of the empire". This might fit nicely btw. the subchapters on "Civil service" & "Diplomacy." An actual discussion of demographics might indeed give rise to contention - although that is not in itself an argument against attempting such an addition. Rather more difficult is the question of sources for such an account. A statistical breakdown is certainly not possible (there was no Byz. census, alas). Peter Charanis did collect a lot of the available evidence for the middle period in a number of studies published in the '60s & '70s (there's a collected studies volume published by Variorum); I'm not aware of a more recent, or a more synthetic, account, but I could easily be missing something. It's the kind of thing Haldon might have dealt with somewhere. --Javits200006:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'dd suggest looking up McEvery, Colin and Jones Atlas of World Population Hisory, 1978 and Jones The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 1964. Contention from some, but not all, althoguh I shudder at making this article longer some information on demographics and population weight ould be helpful.--Dryzen16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Demographics is generally a term which applies to nation-states, or any state of fixed borders. It was you Roydosan who proposed that this article should be reduced, so please don't blame it on other editors now. Greek or Hellenized people were not an ethnic group of the Byzantine Empire, they were the Byzantines, and this has been proved by citations (after all the empire's Latin name was Imperium Graecorum). The role of non-Byzantine (i.e. non-Romaic) ethno-cultural minorities such Slavs, Armenians, Albanians and Jews are worth being mentioned within relevant context. Maybe this deserves to have a seperate article, unless of course the "reducing the article business" was only a pretext. Miskin22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is, where there Romios without the Slavs, Armenians, etc, that is without the ones on which later (further) Hellenisation acted, and the ones which (at least in the beggining) wrote the history of the empire (alongside the Greeks, and the Hellenised non-Greeks, if you could kindly excuse my oxymoron)? Was the empire always "Graecorum"? Justinian proudly proclamed his "ancestral latin language". John VI Kantakouzenos title was "Emperor of the Hellenes, Bulgars, Sassanians, Vlachs, Russians and Alans" Were these the Romios/Romans? Was there anymore a "Roman Empire", or was it simply a Greek Empire, whose citisens viewed themselves as Greeks? If the later, then where from the (claimed) continuity? The current article doesn't deal with this issue, unfortunatelly. It would be interesting to observe how the demographics evolved, starting from the Hellenisation of the populations, from as early as the 4th century in the Middle East and Asia Minor, and how these populations were the catalyst for the subsequent Hellenisation, with the shift of balance between Greek and Latin in favor of the first, continuing with the Byzantine population exchanges (e.g. settling/invasions of Armenians in Thrace, of Slavs in northern Anatolia, of Slavs and Albanians/Arvanites in N. Greece, etc), the slow coagulation and transformation of the partially Greek-speaking Roman-identifying population, into a Greek-speaking Hellene-identifying one, in the late stages of the Empire (as related to the constantly shrinking dimmensions of the Empire, and the impact of the Fourth Crusade, of the "Latins", for example; also, the Orthodox Christian = Greek equality issue, present among both the Byzantines, and the non-Byzantines, should be adressed), how the Byzantines saw themselves (that is to deal on how the Byzantine citizens saw themselves. The current article treats this very vaguely - To its inhabitants, the Empire was simply the Roman Empire and its emperors were understood to continue the unbroken succession of Roman emperors - this simply too little for an encyclopedic article. Mursili23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there used to a section dealing with this issue but some people wanted to move it elsewhere in order to "reduce the article". The same people are apparently now suggesting to restore a "filtered" version of the section. Scanderbeg also proclaimed himself Emperor of the Hellenes, Albanians, Serbs etc, so did Stefan Dusan and if I'm not mistaken Tsar Samuil did too. The glory of being an emperor was to boast on one's occupied territories and peoples. In fact Scanderbeg called himself Emperor of the Romans, Turks, Albanians, Serbs and Bulgarians, making a clear distinction between Byzantine Greeks and other peoples. However none of the above were, nor ever claimed to be a "Byzantine Emperors" in the sense we interpret it today. None except Kantakouzenos that is. It's pointless to make a distinction between Greek and Hellenized people in the middle ages, that distinction was permanently lost after the conquests of Alexander the Great (Wilcken '67). Justinian's Empire is a purely Eastern Roman Empire, and himself is an Eastern Roman Emperor. Transition from Eastern Roman to Byzantine or medieval Greek Empire (Imperium Graecorum) starts with the reign of Heraclius (Ostrogorky). After the Battle of Manzikert the Empire becomes largely a Greek monarchy which strives for recognition, and the Fourth Crusade marks the rebirth of a Hellenic identity. Those are the key dates in the empire's history, from there you can make your own conclusions. Terms such as "partially Greek-speaking, Roman-identifying" strike as original research. The settlings of Slavs from Greece to Bythinia for example, belongs in the article of Justinian II, and not in this one. So do similar forced settlements of Greek-speakers that took place between Southern Italy, Peloponnese, Macedonia, Cyprus and Constantinople to name a few. Anyway I agree with many of your points and disagree with others. I'm glad you have an interest in this, you might find useful that most of your observations are already treated in the article Byzantine Greeks. Miskin03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Considereing all those questions and the possible roadways a demographics, or sub-cultures as some perfer, section may take, I still support it having its own article. In this I couple population weights, essentialy where did the Byzantines reside, type of communities, etc? When I aproach the term demographics I included less a look on major cultures, such as Serbs, Armenians and Jews (each of wich at one time or another either held independant states or fircely independant cultures) but more the internal sub-divisions: Isaurians, Macedonians, etc. Of wich Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society introduction I mirror on this. For reasons stated far above (in another subsection), Byzantine Greeks's name does not seem appropriate to answer this series of questions (the Weight and to a lesser extent the sub-cultures). Its too hot a title, a target of contention and a source for misunderstanding among new readers and passerbyers: simply put I would perfer soemthing more neutral. As it is its a perfect title to speak of the evolution of the greek culture within Byzantium. Which seems to answer most of Mursili's questions.--Dryzen15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-hellenized people such as Slavs, Armenians, Jews etc were not Byzantines as they weren't Romans. This is also evident from the fact that only the vulgar form of Greek was called the "Roman language", anything else spoken in the empire was barbaric. The crusaders who sacked the City in 1204 never thought fighting against any Slavs or Armenians, there's no reason to try to complicate things. Other "major cultures" such as Slavs and Armenians (who only occasionally found themselves under Byzantine occupation), could be treated in their respective articles: Slavs, Serbs, Armenians and Jews (as they are). If you can prove that there was something extremely special about Serbs of Byzantium that's worth being mentioned in a Byzantine related article, then I see no reason to complicate things by mixing up the Byzantines and their subject peoples. We can't let our modern perception of human rights and nation-states interfere with the medieval period. All of this is already explained above. If you have a specific problem about Byzantine Greeks, its neutrality or its content, then you should bring it up in the Talk page of the respective article. This is already discussed and sourced in detail, but I was expecting from editors here to be in denial and hence repetitive. Miskin23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If your bringning contention to my post then you seem to have missed the boat. Contignuing on this supposition, your again perceiving my position as something that it isn't. Should the reproach of denial and repetition be as well aimed at myself. You'll that there was little repition in my post and, in any case, nor have yourself faired better. I have no problem with an article on Byzantine Greeks pertaining to the greek population and culture of Byzantium (and/or the evolution of this culture thoguh the Byzantine periode), wich is to say it majority, both in culture and history. Yet as a candidate article dedicated to span the breath and length of the empire I find such a name a poor choice to pertain to demogrpahics or the statistical study of human populations especially with reference to size and density, distribution, and vital statistics, of wich culture is a prime vital statistic, yet not the only one. To finish on this most repetitive of subject, little has been disclosed to the sub-cultures.--Dryzen18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way I reverted Mursili's edits to the original version, most of his edits were a POV. Saying that the Latin "Graeci" referred to all Orthodox peoples is simply not true, it referred only to Byzantine Greeks, while Bulgars, Serbs, Russians etc were known with their respective names - however the term 'Latins' did refer to all Roman catholic cultures (N. Ciggaar, 1996). The Slavic world too used 'Greeks' (iz gr'k) or 'Hellenes' "to refer to Byzantine Greeks" (H.R. Cooper 2003), but this isn't important enough to mention, nor is the Semitic terms 'Rum' and 'Yunan'. Miskin16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As with all things on this subject one should not work backwards onto the empire as its duration was far longer than modern nations. The attribution of Graeci as you put it, may have prior to the placement of Bulgars, Serbs, Russians, etc into the Latin vocabulary, designated all Orthodox peoples. Such as the Term Roman, as used by the Byzantines, did. Yet of course, one must remember, that for the greater span of time, the former term would not of remained applicable, as by the 10th century the Serbs and Burgars where well known. Later on the Rus as well. Taking note that the mass christianisation of these groups only occured in the 9th century, the term would only have been used on the whole of the states for but a small percentage of history. Still if it occured, it is worth a mention.--Dryzen18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have both primary and secondary sources to refute your claims. Do you have any sources to prove that what you say is not just your personal point of view? Miskin23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Miskin I'll play your game of writting my perceptions and ignoring possibilities or even attempting to see that things aren't all about you or Greeks. so here goes: My claims? What claims? Did I claim somrhing above? No, I put Ifs and Mays. I'm placing a logical and very innofencive methode of thought in action on an argument. I dont know if the Bulgars, Serbs, Russians where ever called Graeci, and I stipulated that even IF they where is wasn't long enough to be of primal import, less than a century. But as an encyclopedia we have a duty to mention it. Not beary things we dont agree with. As you seem to do with hardly fully replying or maybe even reading edits. You preceive that I'm anti-greek? Anti-you? what do you even know of me? Well, with this uneeded aggressivity and seeming ignorance, I'm defitnily starting to rethink my possition towards that effect. I've already begun to change as I've been speaking more directly than I should of late. All I claim is that the regions of the empire had sub-cultures, either slowly evolving into a pan-Byznatium culture due to the origial differences among the locals or dividing due to the reduction of population movements in 7th century. That is something you have yet to refute. As well as a reason wy not to have a section of population demographics as definied by a know dictionary: Webster. You revert edits, fine, but information should be understood before shooting hting into or out off article, maybe Mursili's edits had value maybe not, let him defend his point. --Dryzen15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So we can change the entire history of an empire because some person on wikipedia believes that ethnic designations 'may have' applied or not applied at a certain point in history. Sorry, you are going to have to do better than simple conjecture to rip Byzantium out of the canon of Greek History. I am going to ask you the question that I have asked all non-Greeks, do you believe the native Romioi Greek population of the Byzantine Empire viewed themselves as under occupation by a foreign power? I very much doubt it. Byzantium was not 'multi-ethnic' or 'multi-lingual', it certainly contained minorities, but Jews were not viewed as Romans as Miskin has pointed out constantly and consistently, the peoples of Syria pretty much sided with the Arabs because of their monophysite views, they were clearly not viewed as Romans. They viewed Byzantium as a foreign force. Also, why did the ethnic Greek, Greek speaking towns of Southern Italy opened their gates readily to Byzantine forces during Belisarius' Italian reconquests (see Norwich: Byzantium: The Early Centuries)??
Greek history is under attack. Greeks will defend it. Believe me.
Since when if Greek History under attack, it is a new age of studying Greek History. Theories are a fly, studies develloping and opinions and fact surfacing the globe around. Some will be confrom to the studies of old, others will be contentive, some takign angles never before used and subjects that have never been available. Let the theories and studies be discussed and approached without ignorance or jumping the gun aggressivity. Where a community of interestees, we only speak becuse we hold our subjects to heart, so let use be civil and speak, but speaking needs also listening. And That I do and will do, even if these edit-wars and seeming ideological debates contignue to be cyclic, enflammed and rather inconclusive. Before some one blasts me for not having replied to the above question of ethics and the languages my point was not on this question, but rather the contignuing rivalries and imaginary rivalries between editors and imagined forces in the world.--Dryzen15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Miskin stated: "Jews were not Romans" Hello? St Paul? Who was both Jewish and a Roman citizen (see Acts 22:27-28) and used his position as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor (Acts 25:10-11)- there were many other Jews who were Roman citizens - as in fact all Jews within the empire would have been after AD 212. See here for a detailed discussion of this. Roydosan23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it irrelevant? Because you're wrong? Unless the Jews were somehow stripped of their citizenship, which I've never seen any evidence for, they would still be citizens in the Byzantine period. Roydosan23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly? I would say that the Book of Acts is about as good as primary sources come. You are wrong so why not just admit it for once Roydosan00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Admit what? That the Jews were discriminated and lived in an isolated Suburb of Constantinople (Phillips, 2003)? Or maybe I should admit that the Latin clergy's call on the crusaders "Greeks are worse than the Jews" shouted on the holy warriors to punish only the Hellenic nation of the "Byzantine identity"? Miskin00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What has any of that got to do with your statement that the Jews were never considered as Roman citizens? What would the Latin clergy know of it? And of course Jews were discriminated against but that does not mean they lost their citizenship. Roydosan00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe we need to agree on a common basis before engaging in a dispute, and it appears that we don't. Forget about the anachronistic idea of citizenship for a moment (which apparently you interpret as nationality). Do you agree that the people we call "Byzantines" today, are the people who called themselves "Rhomaioi" and were called by the Latins "Graeci"? Miskin01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I won't participate in an edit-war. Instead I'm curious to see in what degree the self-proclaimed 'neutral' editors are willing to protect the article. If a simple principle such as WP:CITE cannot be protected, then it appears that my presence is more than vital. Miskin01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to cite common sensed edits! Didn't the Empire start as a Latin speaking one? Are you denying even this? And didn't the Greek language imposed itself over the various peoples which lived in the original provinces of the Empire, including the Latin-speaking ones, and weren't their descendants that appear from the 9th century as "Greeks"? I could give you a simple example: the Galatians. What happened to them? What was their fate? How many hellenes did they scioned? Mursili01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, no, of course you don't participate in edit wars. Luckily there are anonymous IPs doing that... Not that I'm accusing you of something. You limit yourself to calling other vandalopolemos, but don't get involved in edit warring... Mursili01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes you do. What is common sense to you is debatable. Latin had never been a living language in the Eastern Roman Empire (Andriotes, 67), only used in administration during the early centuries, displaced by Greek during the Byzantine Empire proper (post-Heraclian). That is already mentioned in the infobox. But that's the least problem about your edits anyway, the rest of your edits as well as your remarks, are a bunch of personal research (POV). As I said, I'm not going to revert you any further, you're obviously an non-experienced editor who thinks that edit-warring will get the job done. Miskin01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you see in my book you're a vandal now, but I didn't want to say that in your face. You shouldn't revert again, you'll break 3RR and risk getting blocked. Miskin01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not intend to participate in an edit war, or to start a renewed argument, but I believe that the statement "Latin had never been a living language in the Eastern Roman Empire" is wrong. This can be easily proven. Firstly, the Emperor Justinian was from the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, and his native language was Latin. Furthermore, it is known that significant numbers of soldiers from the northern Balkans in particular were Latin speakers, in the early years of the Empire. If Miskin is already aware of the presence of significant Latin speaking communities in the Eastern Roman Empire, then his statement that "Latin had never been a living language in the Eastern Roman Empire" lays him open to accusations of deliberately trying to minimise the Latin aspect of the early empire. Bigdaddy120402:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Bigdaddy, I had just written a large amount of text to make my point clear on the matter, you just went ahead and edited and now it's all gone. Thanks a lot man :) :) :) --86.133.188.13802:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Just some quick points on Byzantine Jews:
There were also a large number of Jews living in the Byzantine world. However, the Romans had considered the Jews in comparison to Christians to be narrow, dogmatic, and intolerant people, and had little love for them. Under Roman law Jews had legal protection as long as they did not proselytize among Christians, build new synagogues, or attempt to enter public office. Whereas Justinian adopted a policy of voluntary Jewish conversion, the later emperors ordered all Jews to be baptized, and granted tax breaks to those who voluntarily complied. Neither effort was successful in converting the Jews of the Empire.
In general terms the Jews of Greece during this period can be described as “Romaniot” Jews, i.e. , Jews of the empire of the “second Rome”, Byzantium. Their status under Byzantine rule was peculiar, but they were protected by law and only rarely do contemporary sources convey the impression of persecution. Life was not made easy for them, lest they forget their refusal to accept the Christian Messiah, but they were recognized at least as descendants of the Chosen People. Integration into the cultural pattern of Greek life can be seen in the loss of Hebrew by many communities. Some communities tried to maintain at least the form of Hebrew by writing out whole sections of the Tanah in Greek using Hebrew script, as in the illuminated Book of Job from Crete(Ms. Gr. 135 Bib. Nationale).
And Bigdaddy, the only Latin speaking areas I can think of were probably in Southern Italy, however, they were very, very minimal. The most populous area of the empire was Asia Minor, which has been described by Treadgold, Norwich, and Ostrogorsky as thoroughly Greek. The largest cities where in these areas and around the coast, as well as in Greece proper such as Thessaloniki and Corinth, there is no question the majority of the population, even at Basil II's extent, was Greek, and even if it wasn't, the non-Hellenized, non-Greek speaking Slavic peasants hardly represents 'Roman Citizens'. Middle-Ages Empires cannot be judged by modern standards as far as national identities go as they were inbetween the formation stage of the Great Monarchies of Western Europe, therefore for example, The Franks are treated as the predecessors to the Great Monarchies of France, and Western European consensus on this matter is a give, there is no dispute that the Franks are canonically part of 'French' History. The logic behind Roydosan and Bigdaddy's points is wierd, it seems to echo a point of view that states The Greeks where somehow under occupation by Romans from Rome from the 2nd century BC until the 4th crusade, when, following this crusade, these Romans suddenly decided they were Greek, and the Greeks were no longer under occupation.
Furthermore Bigdaddy, as far as your comments on the Byzantine Army go, and Latin speakers within it, I remind you that Greek speaking cities readily opened their gates to Belisarius's armies (in Italy), while Latin-speaking cities where more cautious. I also advise you to read Browning's Byzantine Empire as it contains a couple of passages relevant to the point regarding the friction between actual Byzantine Soldiers (i.e. Greeks) in the army, and the Slavic Foederati. --86.133.188.13802:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to minimise any aspects bigdaddy. As it has been posted several times already, it had been hard to even find a Latin translator in Constantinople by the 6th century AD, so I'm not really making any of this up. Latin was present in the early administration of the Eastern empire, but it was never a spoken language in Constantinople and as far as I know in the East in general. This is also evident by the fact that Justinian chose by 534 to compile his Novellae in Greek, justifying himself by saying: "we didn't write the law in our fathers' tongue, but in the common language of Greece, so that everyone will be able to understand it" (ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν, είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας). On the other hand, as the Jirecek Line shows, his birthplace of Scupi wasn't in a Latin-speaking area, so he must have had Latin as native from his royal side. As he affirms himself, Justinian was a pure Roman Emperor ruling over a Greek-speaking empire (prior to the reconquest of the West). What's interesting is that Justinian repopulated Southern Italy by importing Greek-speakers from mainland Greece (B.M. Kreutzh, 1996). Latin was most certainly present in the early Roman administration but I'm not aware of any significant native Latin-speaking territories in the "Greek East". Anyway the issue on Latin is the least that concerns me about Mirisili's edits. He's been pushing clearly POV, unsourced content, without asking the opinion of others, in the lead section of a featured article. That's not a very constructive behaviour, and he's blatantly not contributing out of love of the subject. Miskin03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Justinian "ancestral tongue" was Latin. That is what he openly declared. His name, Sabbatius, points to a Romanised Thracian origin. Justinians uncle, Justin, was born well to the north of the Jirecek Line, the names the companions from his youth, Dityvistus and Zimarchus, also point to a Thracian origin. Regarding this subject, look what I found -Mursili04:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Scupi is clearly south of the Jirecek line, but I don't see the relevance. The role of Latin is already mentioned in the infobox. Miskin23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that my comment about Justinian and Latin speakers in the Eastern Roman Empire has caused some interesting responses. In particular, this:
"The logic behind Roydosan and Bigdaddy's points is wierd, it seems to echo a point of view that states The Greeks where somehow under occupation by Romans from Rome from the 2nd century BC until the 4th crusade, when, following this crusade, these Romans suddenly decided they were Greek, and the Greeks were no longer under occupation."
I find this hilarious. Firstly, I have been carefully grouped with Roydosan, who has previously been accused of holding the view outlined above; the inference is that I must share Roydosan's 'outrageous' and 'anti-Greek' views. This is despite the fact that I have deliberately stayed well clear of discussion on the matter before now, and I have never made an edit about this topic, or participated in a discussion on it until now.
It seems that 86.133.188.138 has over-reacted to my words, and has assumed that I have views about the subject, when I do not. This is exactly the reason why I have not got involved until now. I have been accused of having absurd ideas about the Byzantine Empire, involving some sort of Roman occupation, yet if you look at what I actually said, it has nothing to do with this. I merely made two points:
The Emperor Justinian spoke Latin
There were Latin speaking communities in the northern Balkans (north of the Jirecek line) until c.600AD, which provided some soldiers to the Empire
How saying either of these two points can mean that I think
"The Greeks where somehow under occupation by Romans from Rome from the 2nd century BC until the 4th crusade, when, following this crusade, these Romans suddenly decided they were Greek, and the Greeks were no longer under occupation."
is impossible for me to understand. Such a comment is nonsense.
Next I must deal with this comment:
"Furthermore Bigdaddy, as far as your comments on the Byzantine Army go, and Latin speakers within it, I remind you that Greek speaking cities readily opened their gates to Belisarius's armies (in Italy), while Latin-speaking cities where more cautious."
This looks to me like you have assumed that I think the Byzantine Army was mainly Latin speaking. You may have got this idea when I said
"it is known that significant numbers of soldiers from the northern Balkans in particular were Latin speakers, in the early years of the Empire."
I didn't mean the army was mainly Latin, just that during the Roman and early Byzantine period, there were some Latin speakers north of the Jirecek line (some of them serving in the army), and therefore it's not true that Latin wasn't being spoken in the empire. Therefore your response was based on a misunderstanding; I should have explained what I meant more clearly.
Finally, for Miskin:
"I'm not aware of any significant native Latin-speaking territories in the "Greek East". "
As far as I understand it, the "Greek East" does not go north of the Jirecek line. Therefore I agree - I am not aware of any significant native Latin-speaking territories in the "Greek East" either. The only native Latin speakers in the early Byzantine empire would therefore be either from north of the Jirecek line, or from Justinian's conquests in North Africa, Italy, and Spain.
One final question. When exactly did Latin die out north of the Jirecek line? I am assuming that, after 600AD, it quickly declined and was replaced by Slavic languages. Is this correct? Bigdaddy120413:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I concour to Bigdaddy's view. As for the Jireckec line, I would like to comment that it`s a modern consensus. Nobody can really say where the limits of the Greek and Latin were. For example, most probably the coast line, well inside the Jirecek line, probably up to modern Crimea, had Greek speaking populations, besides the majoritary Latin (and possibly, remnants of the Thracian languages). And to answer Bigdaddys question, Latin didn't die out in the northern Balkans. Two languages survived: the now extinct Dalmatian language in the western Balkans, and the Vlach language in the eastern Balkans, with the last, being to this day, alive and well. Mursili16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
However, it should not be applied to the Black Sea coastline, which was largely settled by Greeks before Rome expanded beyond Latium. Olbia is north of it, for example, as is the Tauric Chersonese]]. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Arabic name
A few days ago I added the med. Arabic name ("Rum") for the empire to the intro paragraph, on the principle that if the Latin name is relevant, then so is the Arabic; Gk., Latin, and Arabic being the three major languages (politically and culturally) of the medieval Mediterranean. Since then there has been some toing-and-froing btw. various other editors as to whether this ought to be included. I think it better to discuss the subject here than to re-insert it again, which was my first impulse. On what grounds could the Latin name be relevant, and the Arabic name not? --Javits200011:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Because Latin was an official language of the Empire and Arabic wasn't. However the Arabic name is interesting from the perspective of the discussion of the name of the Byzantine Empire so I have no problem with its inclusion. Roydosan12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - Latin and Greek have to be there because they were the official languages of the empire. However, I do think it would add value to include the Arabic name, although in a separate field - perhaps a separate section of all names of the empire in different languages? It's interesting to note that "Rum" is also used by the Turks, and it is also the word the Turks use to identify modern Greeks. Biz11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look, though I couldn't really say I've read it. On amazon.com it's only 20$, but in the British museum's bookshop it was at 60 pounds. Miskin00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've recently ordered it and hope to delve within its knowledge in due time, as with all the other Byzantine ressource I've aquired of late. --Dryzen18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Khan Tervel and the siege of Constantinopole
The Second Arab siege of Constantinople took place in 717–718. The Bulgar khan, Tervel, came to rescue and dealt a decesive blow to the Arabs. He is said to have slaughtered some 22,000 Arabs in that battle. I would like to pose a question: What is the significance of this battle? Many of the Greeks I have asked have never heard of it, whereas in Bulgarian history, this is recorded as a major event. Perhaps even more so, because of the Bulgaro-Byzantine alliance, which is a rare occurence in itself :))) Apparently Tervel and Iustinian II enjoyed a somewhat friendly relationship, at least to the point that politics allowed it.
It could be regarded as an underrated contribution, such as in the case of Poland and the Battle of Vienna. In case you're interested, there was another Greco-Bulgarian alliance that checked and destroyed the Latin force responsible for the 4rth crusade. Miskin23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! I think you are referring to the Second Bulgarian Empire and the anti-Latin alliance with Theodore I Laskaris of the Empire of Nicaea. The final alliance (meant to unite the Balkan kings and despots)of this kind did not succeed and sent the whole of the Balkans into Ottoman hands... Oh and the first one dates as far back as Iraclius and Kubrat of the Great Bulgaria ( on the Ukranian-Russian side of the Black Sea). Supposedly, Kubrat grew up in Constantinople, where the two became close friends. Kaloyan* 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Further impovements of the maps (feel free to add your own improvement proposals - only serious ones please :)
First let me tell you that I am quite impressed and very satisfied with the recent improvements. But some (minor) things can (and should) be done to improve the maps even further. On the other hand it is ungrateful work which requers a lot of time and patrience. If I knew to improve the maps I wouldn't be asking, but alas...
Please place the city of Syracuse inside the maps. It seems to have been the local provincial capital (I might be wrong here) and the center of Byzantine power in that area.
Please divide the empire in the first map (with the Byzantine Empire in light purple, and the Western Roman Empire in blood red). With the death of Theodosius the Great in 395 AD the division of the old Empire was made permanent (by the way that was the original reason for this date).
Please replace the map inside the infobox (violet and green) with a map which follows the agreed colour schema ("light purple" + (please choose a good contrasting colour)). Don't forget to include the World locator map.
Please replace Ravenna with Venice in all the maps after 750 AD. As per the article Exarchate of Ravenna Byzantine power over it ended around that date, and Venice slowly rose in power and importance into becoming a major player in the Mediterranean Sea.
Please replace Carthage with Tunis in all the maps after 700 AD. Per both articles Carthage was conquered by the Arabs and lost its importance/was replaced by Tunis.
After all these improvements the "map changinging box" at the end of the article could be then be improved with the light purple maps.
I am a little held up with other commitments at the moment, but I am willing to make the changes you have requested, unless anyone objects strongly (which I doubt). I cannot begin immediately, but I will come back when I can to contribute more. If anyone else is able to make these changes sooner, they are welcome to do so, as long as the results are posted here for all to see. Expect to see the work done by the middle of January, at the latest :) (and hopefully much sooner) Bigdaddy120416:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it a rather understandable delay, with the Holidays and the such at this time of year. It is as well the primary reason why I've been abscent these passed days. --Dryzen18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
.PNG)
,
.PNG)
