text:
Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 7

Byzantine maps
Ok lets get this straight. Byzantium was born on Christmas eve... it's power was at its height in 1025, but her territorial extent was greatest under Justinian I's reign. We don't give a damn what a few Historians (a minority) say when Byzantium was born. Either way, eve if Byzantium was born at Heracliu's reign, than it is a Byzantium with Egypt, Syria, Palestine and north Africa that is territorially at a maximum, not in 1025 when she was the most powerful, but not the greatest in territorial extent. Tourskin (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In general I agree(as my edits show it)....one more thing: as many sources that give 330 are that give 476, so I consider any of these dates as good ones, but this is not the case, and even as Heracius`s reign was marked by many important events, they were not so ground-breaking as to consider it the birth of the empire(the greatest of these being: the birth of Islam and it`s expansion, the themata system and some new religiouse controveries). AdrianCo (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

13th century est. 3,000,000
What estimate? The Empire in 1200 consisted of Western Asia Minor and Greece, in 1210 it barely consisted of anything more than a strip of land from Smyrna to Nicaea and in 1273 was again holding much of Greece and western Asia Minor. We need some references for these numbers. Is this figure with regards to the "Byzantine people" i.e. Greco-Romans or subjects of such a state, or states, or which state for that matter! There was Epirus, Nicaea, Trebizond. Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overdo it with the maps
I think the article gets overwhelmed with maps, and I tend now to agree with Peter Isolato's criticism during the article's FAR. I took the initiative to remove two maps: Anyway, if you disagree with that, re-edit my changes, but I still think that we should not overdo it with maps.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One in "Justinian" with the empire's greater extent, because there is already a map in the infobox with its greater extent. And in order to place initially the map there, someone had moved Justinian's picture in the next section!
 * One in the next section with the Empire in 626. There is already a map with the empire in 650. Why two maps for such a short period?

 * I think you should restore the map Image_Roman-Empire_565ad_sm.jpg. The map at the top is good for a brief glance but it doesn't have nearly as much information as the one you deleted. The deleted map shows info about the Empire at its height and the world it existed in. None of the other maps show that kind of information, and I think that leaves readers without valuable information. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, and the sake of my eyes, can someone please change the colour of the Byzantine Empire in the map for 1180AD to imperial purple, as it is in most of the other maps. It was agreed a long time ago that all maps should show the empire in purple, after lengthy discussion. Check the archives for further details. Please, the bright red colour of the 1180 map is hideous, damages the look of the article, and is not consistent with the agreed standard. There are other maps which show the empire in green, and for consistency they should really be changed too. However, I am willing to overlook this, since at least they are pleasant to look at. The red, however, is an unsightly abberration, and really should be changed as soon as possible by anyone who has the time/ability to do so. Much thanks, Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * If you want, I can edit one of your maps that had Byzantium as purple and include Byzantium's neighbours just like the user's maps has. I'll try to have it done soon, I'm on a psuedo-wiki break at the moment.

 * I agree with Yannis regarding the maps. The 650 map is more important. The 626 map is almost identical to previous maps and we know that the Persian wars ended in status quo ante bellum anyways. As for the 565 AD map, that is also redundant given the article info and the top map. We do need to keep it real people. Tourskin (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it real. Dr.K. (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

@Tourskin: That would be much appreciated! It really does make the eyesockets bleed to see such a horrible bright red colour representing the empire. Furthermore, the borders it depicts are not even quite accurate either; the empire extends a little too far to the west in the Balkans. I understand that it's nice to have the empire's neighbours, but they could just be added to this map, and it would be more historically accurate and look much better too. Thanks. :) Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit - and besides, I've never heard of a city called 'Thessalonka'... Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit 2 - I've made the new map myself and added it to the article. Nothing like a bit of self initiative ;) Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Nice, lol, sorry took so long, I was half done, I swear!!Tourskin (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Now get to work on 1081!! lol.Tourskin (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Science
Anticipating a discussion let me respond to AdrianCo's comments in attempting to remove text from the section on Science.
 * comparting to what age?From the ~5th cenutry onwords the ERE was the foremost reserch centere of Europe, in all the Middle Ages West Europe developed only armor and agriculture on a significant scale

The text in question is
 * Although at various times the Byzantines made magnificent achievements in the application of the sciences (notably in the construction of the Hagia Sophia), after the 6th century Byzantine scholars made few novel contributions to science in terms of developing new theories or extending the ideas of classical authors. (I added a couple of words since AdrianCo's last edit to clarify)

So in terms of the foremost research center of Europe, certainly this is a very true in the very early Middle Ages. After that, before the rise of Al-Andalus this is technically true although it is rather like saying today Riyadh is the research center of Saudia Arabia (it is probably true although Saudia Arabia is not particularly a hotbed of scientific research in general, not to say anything bad about the Saudis, of course). By the late first millenium Al-Andalus was by far the research center of Europe and, of course, the other major research centers of the Mediterranean region were not in Europe.

So certainly there was substantial scholarship in the the ERE throughout its life (in other words, there were many scholars who kept up with and disseminated the scientific achievements of others) and there were practical innovations throughout as well. But most true scientific advancement in the Empire had halted by the 6th (maybe 7th) century (if you know of authors who dispute this please provide references). There were exceptions but it was mostly the Muslims who carried the torch until the Renaissance and the modern era.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. As a side note it should be pointed out that many scholars have argued that the Romans in general, even before the fall of Rome, were never particularly known for scientific innovation. They were always known to be good at learning from others and applying that knowledge. Still once Rome acquired the Greek world scientific investigation did continue, especially in Egypt, but once Egypt and so many other territories were finally lost to the Arabs the imperative toward further discovery largely passed to the Muslims. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Culure, and elements of it such as philosophy, rethoric and architecture ornamentation make not science(unless you are refering to humanistic sciences)!As for Al-Andalus,yes they were very advanced...when it comes to heavy cavalry, but the ERE had Cataphracts, and they evolved both in tactics and in thir equipment. So are you saying that of all, HORSE-RIDING GEAR made the difference?!? Man, take a look here. But I may be wrong and norrow! So if you know of more scientific achivements let me know!(I do mean it, Al-Andaluz once interested me greatly, and I will realy appreciate if you would let me know how well they did when it comes to breakthroughs). Until then....revert.AdrianCo (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one disputes that for most of the Middle Ages the ERE had the most capable military. But, as I understand it, their military success in defending the Empire was due primarily to 3 things: Regarding the list of scientists you should read that list more carefully. Mostly the scientists who could be argued to have made significant advances are ones that lived very early in the Middle Ages. The scientists from later eras are mostly people whose contribution was education, translation, and/or compilation of knowledge from earlier eras or from scientists in other nations. It's not that these people were not very intelligent and very well versed in the latest science of their time but they mostly did not make original contributions to science. The major advancements in science during the Middle Ages, at least outside of China, mostly came from the Muslims (including Al-Andalus, Persia, etc.).
 * Superior strategies: Certainly extremely important but this is not "science", per se.
 * The Walls of Theodosius: These were completed before the end of the 6th century (granted there was some other construction done later but never again on the same scale). Even at that the walls were more an "engineering" accomplishment than a "scientific" one.
 * Some very specific military technologies, especially Greek Fire: Arguably there were some scientific contributions made in developing these technologies but nothing earth-shattering. Most of their later military technology was based on classical science or things they learned from the Arabs and Persians. What they were always good at, since the days of Rome, was recognizing what was the best solution to a problem.

Regarding specifically the accomplishments of Al-Andalus, you should look up people like Abulcasis, Arzachel, and Ibn al-Baitar. The Wikipedia articles don't really do these guys justice but they made huge contributions. Translations of Ibn al-Baitar's medical encyclopedia, for example, were used as reference materials in Europe as late as the 19th century.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * On your last note: in 18-19 cenutry Europe there still were experiments that involved cow-human blood transplant, sorcery and of course "romanic-view-points"(a short expemple: there was a belief that in the late stages of tuberculosis man were smarter and more "lyrical" while women were more beautiful), so that 19 cenutry-reference thing leaves my blood cold. Out of the three man that you pointed out to one was born in Al-Andaluz but traveled the mediterranean around. They are great man indeed! And scientists! But the only thing that Al-Andaluz was great at in the science domain is medicine and astronomy. Yes, an important area, but their were still far from breakthroughs. In Ancient Egypt there was one one man that even vivisected dead bodyis! But the info he callected coulden`t be put to good use.On another level: Al-Andaluz isn`t culuraly part of Europe, witch makes me remind you....that we are speaking of Europe,YES! oh...great China with it`s gunpowder, and mighty Persia that had Windcatcher even in ancient times and man,many other great things like this or like this...BUT....ist`s part of ASIA. We are speaking of Europe! :et me give you some expemles [Symeon_Seth], [Al-Khazini], [Demetrius Triclinius], [Leontios], [Michael Glycas], Theodore Melitiniotis, Isaac Argyros, and so on...(see them yourself in the list), they are all "post-Haghia Sophia". So what is your point?! Was Al-Andaluz one of the leading european(geographycaly,not cultural,ethnicaly, philosophicaly,military,politicaly speaking) centers of reasearch(although this term may be far fetched)?! Yes. Were they the greatest, don`t think so, don`t have resons to think so. AdrianCo (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AdrianCo, what is your obsession with Al-Andalus? I don't really know what your whole exposition on the definition of Europe and the greatness or inferiority of Al-Andalus really has to do with the subject at hand?

In any event you have neither questioned the references I have provided nor have you offered any references that refute what they say. I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is if you cannot defend your POV.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. Regarding the Byzantine scholars you mention.
 * Simeon Seth - I would say he was one of the few examples of later scholars who actually made novel contributions. But still the majority of his contributions were compiling the texts of others.
 * Al-Khazini - He did make some important contributions but it since he spent most of his life outside of the Empire it would seem he doesn't really count.
 * Demetrius Triclinius - I thought his was more into literature. Certainly he knew astronomy but he didn't contribute anything in that arena.
 * Leontios - Smart guy and a good engineer from what I've read but it seems he "revived" the work of others but did not really innovate.
 * Michael Glycas - I thought he was more of a historian and theologian. He was supposedly well-versed in mathematics and astronomy but what did he contribute?
 * Theodore Melitiniotis - I don't really find much info about him. What was his major contribution?
 * Isaac Argyros - He wrote commentaries and compendia on Persian and Greek works but what was his major contribution?
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok people, I haven't followed this convo thru but seriously we gotta stop with the removal of referenced works. Adrian, I agree kinda wit ur opinion but ur gonna need to add some sources otherwise whats soruced stays as opposed to unsourced deletions. Tourskin (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * About your sources: is from 1904...so it`s not quite up to date, points out that :"Despite some tensions in the thirteenth century, the Church and its theologians became favorably disposed toward science and natural philosophy and used them extensively in their theological deliberations"...so that would prove the exact reverse of what you said, wouldn`t it?!...Can`t comment for the other to for now, but at least those can saftly be left out....So for now(until i find more info :) )....the article can stay this way.One more thing, all I said is to keep the discussion European, not world-wide.AdrianCo (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AdrianCo, this discussion seems to be taking a "religious" bent that I am not sure how to deal with. In any event, to respond to your comments:
 * Strictly speaking it does not matter if a work is from 1904 or 904. If a reference is reasonably authoritative and reflective of modern consensus then it is acceptable. Again, if you have more recent references that dispute this opinion or more clearly reflect modern consensus that's fine. Otherwise I don't know what your point is.
 * Regarding the "Science and Religion" book:
 * The quote you mention is not part of the specific pages that were mentioned as references.
 * The quote describes Western Christian attitudes, not Eastern Roman attitudes. Granted you could loosely suggest that the change in Western attitudes may have been because the Easterners had these attitudes but the text does not actually say this.
 * Regardless of any of it, the quote (and the rest of the text that you haven't included) is only saying that the Christians were more willing to learn science from others not that they were motivated to do their own investigations.

I do not see a valid justification of why these would be left out.

If I may suggest I think the issue you are having has more to do with not liking that the statement casts the Empire in a less favorable light than you would like. I understand that sentiment but it's not really relevant. Perhaps what you want is to rephrase the statement or add more to the section to elucidate the sophistication and achievements of the ERE. I do think, though, it is important to bring out the fact that in the later centuries their accomplishments were more a matter of putting science to good use rather than inherently developing the science themselves. The Arabs, Persians, etc. deserve a lot of credit, both for helping to preserve a lot of the ancient Greek (and Hindu and Persian) knowledge but more for being responsible for most of the scientific progress of the Middle Ages. The Eastern Romans, by contrast, deserve credit for
 * Educating the Muslims and Westerners in the first place.
 * Providing a powerful stabilizing influence in the region economically and militarily which I would argue actually benefited the Arabs and Persians and made a lot of their progress possible.
 * Developing ways to put the science that was being developed into practice in terms of "engineering" accomplishments, and for helping to compile and disseminate knowledge around the Mediterranean.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * About your first statment-that was mean of you to say!Yet you diserve an explenation about my behaviour: I value truth over sentiment! And I try very hard not to get involved in a sentimental way and I do have my own criticism on the ERE(exemples: I called the Angelos Emperors "idiots, and probaly the most stupid of all the emperors ever!" and I consider the ERE to start from 476, if I were such a fanatical defender of Byzantium I would have said 313, wouldn`t I? still, I don`t push for this move since there are many references that cite 313). One more thing about me: of all the muslim states the one I admire most, from all my heart is Iran(Persia=Iran for all those who didn`t know untill now), so please stop assuming what my motivations and intentions are.
 * Now about this disscusion in general: the reason I left Iran/Persia out was beacuse I what to keep this article section only to European Comparisons. Why? Beacause I consider that at that time comunication was at such a low level that it virtualy didn`t exsist! So how can we compare China to the ERE to the Caliphate of Baghdad when they are worlds apart? That was my reason! As for the 1904 source...the problem is that it is not from the contemporan era... now, If i recall the main opposition to having Edward Gibbon as a souce was that he was not "a modern source". About the other: well that`s what I understood. Mediation anyone?!(editors!, not necesarly admins, I just whant a second oppinion from another wikipedian interested in the Byzantine Empire article)? To tell you the truth I am probaly in a similar situation as Tourskin regarding my available time, so that`s why I can`t take the time to find my own references. But can you at least understand my point?! And that this point is not based on religios conviction but more on...de-facto cultural lines? AdrianCo (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AdrianCo, I do recognize that your motives are sincere and I do not mean to imply otherwise.

I'm not sure how relevant it is but I would agree that communication with China was limited although certainly not non-existent. It is known that the ERE and China did exchange embassies and had regular contact at various times. I'm not sure it can be argued that Baghdad and the ERE were so far apart. Certainly there was enmity due to religion and other rivalries that kept them much more separate that the Muslim lands were to each other. But the ERE had substantial contact with all Muslim lands around the Mediterranean and near East including trade and (limited) scholarly exchanges. Obviously this varied with how close to war they were at any given time but it would be wrong to suggest that they they didn't know much about each other. Certainly, though, the Arabs knew a lot more about Persia that the ERE did. Regardless, whether any of these nations were talking to each other or not is not in and of itself relevant to who was making major scientific contributions or not.

Regarding Gibbon, first I am not aware that it has been stated that he is completely dismissed. It is true that many of his opinions do not agree with modern consensus and so those opinions should be dismissed on that basis. If there are significant modern sources that disagree with the 1904 source then, yes, it should be dismissed. But the fact that the book is a century old isn't by itself significant. In any event, I have provided very recent sources which say the same basic things (albeit perhaps a little less harsh).

In any event, I am unclear what exactly is your stand at this point. Are you saying that there were many Eastern Roman scholars in the later eras that were pushing the frontiers of science? You gave a list but didn't really respond about how each pushed science forward. The major accomplishments of the folks during the later "Byzantine Renaissance" were to a great degree grasping the progress that the Muslims (and Hindus) had been making (much like the Western European Renaissance). This does not mean that it did not take some true intelligence or even genius to try to grasp these complex works written by foreign cultures and it is not that they did not apply this knowledge in novel ways, but still this is different than producing original research and theory.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I would re-add Gibbon as a source, but even thinking of that war I had back then makes me shiver. Well ok, can you tell me if there were any breakthroughs in science in the middle ages. The only ones I could think of, world-wide are: gunpowder(China), the sesonal rotation of crops(all over Europe-not sure if this is the correct translation in english) and windmills(Iran/Northwest Europe). So in the sense of over all concrete reserch no one can be atributed to have such a great impact in reserch. As for Iranian-ERE Concatcts(or Iran-Europe in general)...let me just point out that the Nicene Creed find it`s way to Iran only a hundread years after the First Ecoumenical Council...I think everyone can grasp the extent of communications of the two cultures back then...let`s just say that the middle ages and the rise of islam(and downfall of zoroastroanism) were not factors of improving communication.
 * I think we both understand our point of views, but the current formulation appears to me somewhat flowed. So! Would you agree if we had a formulation such as: "in the Christian cultural-world the ERE had a lead role throughout the middle ages(dispite the slow down during it`s late stages it is was arguable the most advanced) however after the 6/7th century the Islamic world and China got the upper hand". Not sure though...this formulation would be correct, but still I don`t think that we can compare those three worlds. What do you think? AdrianCo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion privately since this is getting too long and it is only the two of us talking about it ... --Mcorazao (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaahh come on!!! I was enjoying it!Tourskin (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Don't cut it down, its perfect the way it is. Discuss before making such changes please. We are trying to be as Byzantine civilized as possible. Tourskin (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Tourskin, I know that I'm new to this page, but I've worked on a lot of leads on a lot of pages. The previous lead defined the Byzantine Empire but didn't describe it. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Imagine that someone reads just the lead and nothing else. That reader should walk away with an overview of what the Byzantine Empire was. The lead should also be accessible and spark interest in the topic. I can cite WP:LEAD in favor of my perspective on the lead. Can you cite policies and guidelines in favor of your perspective? Leadwind (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tourskin, I'm sorry that my rewrite of the lead took you by surprise. It's my practice to be bold. As long as we're both willing to work in accord with WP guidelines, we should be able to get the lead to a place where we're both satisfied with it. If there are particular problems with the lead I wrote, let's address them individually. Leadwind (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I personally don't see how the "new" lead is an improvement on the former, even taking the WP guidelines into account. I am particularly concerned that Leadwind's edits have removed all reference to the name ("Byzantine empire") as a historiographic convention and to the actual medieval names for the empire. This is among the first things mentioned in any introduction to the topic; see e.g. the Britannica article, second paragraph ("The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire's history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state," etc.). --Javits2000 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I salute your experience with other articles but heres why Byzantium isn't just another article that can be fitted in to wikipedia's rules, which, can be broken if they are not constructive. And heres why its not very constructive; the Empire has so much to it that to summarize everything, as you attempted to do - whilst it is a good idea, will water down the lead. For example, the last sentence read "the Empire was attacked by the Islamic empire and then destroyed by it". In an attempt to summarize the Empire's demise you have left out the contributions of the Venetians, Genoans, Crusaders, the Papacy and early Franks, whom all had a part to play. The Muslims never struck a decisive blow against Constantinople as did the Fourth Crusade. I share Javit's concern with regards to the difference in content. However, I am willing to give a little ground but to be honest its not broken, doesn't need to be fixed and the article is already as long as the Empire herself (lol pun intended) and so not much can be added to it. Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that Leadwind is right. The current leadtext is simply way too large. Javits2000 complains about the lack of an explaination of the name-issue and Tourskin complains that other major enemies are not mentioned. Well, if these two things are so important (and I'm not so sure that they are truly are important at all for the average user) then include them into Leadwinds entry (adding two more sentences). The lead-text is intended to give a ressumee for somebody who knows precious little about the subject. The current text is way too heavy and cumbersome. Flamarande (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This Empire`s History is as complex as it`s etymplogy...for wikipedia`s sake please leave the lead part as it is....ok ...you may improve it, but don`t chop it! AdrianCo (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * As Adrian said, the history is so complex thats it better not to start something you can't finish - lets just leave it at that the Ottomans defeated Byzantium. Ultimately, it was the Ottomans who destroyed most of Byzantium's most important possessions; Thrace and Asia Minor. Tourskin (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Byzantine Empire was the successor state to the Roman Empire.[3] As the empire considered itself to be the Roman Empire, it has no official date on which it was founded. Some consider it to have started in the 4th century, when Emperor Constantine established Byzantium (then called New Rome) as his capital (330) and the empire split into East and West (395). Others point to the 5th century, when Rome fell (476) and left the Eastern emperor the sole imperial successor. It ended in 1453 with the fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks.

 * The Byzantine Empire was the last bastion of Roman and Hellenic culture.[3] It withstood attacks from various enemies, sheltering Western Europe as it reorganized.[3] The empire preserved Roman and Greek traditions that were lost in the West, thereby contributing to Western civilization..[3]

 * The Empire practiced Eastern Christianity. For its first centuries, its churches were in communion with the Bishop of Rome. With the East-West Schism of 1054, its churches severed ties with Rome, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople enjoyed the status of first among equals.

 * The Empire was first reduced by the spread of Islam and then defeated by it.

 * I think this entry is quite good. Of course some things have to improved (improved; as in made clearer not as include too many facts) The only two thing that I would change are two sentences: "As the empire considered itself to be the Roman Empire, it has no official date on which it was founded." into something like: "its habitants considered that they were living in the Roman empire and in fact the name/term "Byzantine empire" was introduced by later 17th French scholars (with a proper link towards the right article) and' the last sentence into "The Empire, surrounded by many enemies, was reduced by the spread of Islam, seriously weakenend by the Seljuk Turks, assaulted by the 4th Crusade, and ended in 1453 with the fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks." (giving three links to the proper articles and perhaps adding a single sentence about the remains like Trebizond) Flamarande (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I promise to keep an open mind. I'll check it out later .Tourskin (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Still not good. I don`t consider external wars to be the sole crucial factor to the Empire`s ultimate demise, anyone remeber the schisms, civil wars, political fight?! It is difficult to evaluate events such as Manzikert without taking a peak at the home situation of the Empire...but what about economical factors such as the ailing gold-monopol established and weekend gradualy by trade or the role of the Venetians and Genoas, in commerce and in fleat? No! I don`t see no single factor that can be identified as the most-importent one. So maybe we should have only a short reference to the Ottoman Conquest and the 4th Crusade. The thirs paragraph can be severly shortend: we could have only the years enumerated with a small justification after all of the, also: the interval 379–395 and the year 395 are simultaneous on a history scale in this context, so maybe we should only mention 395. But I don`t think the first paragraph should be changed whatsoever! That is because in this state more then in others identity was a center piece, of course: Emprires such as the HRE or the OE claimed their power from Rome, but in this case the connection was much more tight, plus it is crucial to understand this, as one who first visits the article(and hears of the ERE) to know about the Roman identity sustification so that they could understand major events such as the Irane-Charlemagne dispute or the three arab sidges of Constantinople.AdrianCo (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well said, although I still haven't taken a look . Adrian makes a good point. Byzantium destroyed herself as much as she was destroyed. Tourskin (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I also agree with Adrian; and tend to think that the whole question of the "cause" of the empire's fall shouldn't even come up in the lead. The current lead addresses this very succinctly; generally considered to end in 1453, with a few smaller states limping along. Any discussion of "why" that would fit in the lead would be of necessity far too simplistic. There are some other statements in the proposed new lead I find problematic; in particular the whole second paragraph. This paints the importance of Byzantium in largely negative terms; thus what it preserved and what it protected but not in any sense what it was. The implication seems to be that Byzantium is important only insofar as it helped the "West"; I disagree. I have exactly the same objection to the paragraph on religion. Yes, they were in communion with Rome, but also with Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria (the pentarchy). And why the relationship to Rome should in any sense define Byzantine Christianity is beyond me. --Javits2000 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * In principle, I agree with some of what has been said, but for reasons of practicality, and those raised by Adrian and Javits, the current Lead is best for now. Tourskin (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * And if Islam hadn't destroyed her, the Crusaders almost certainly would have, or the Mongols or both. Tourskin (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok People, how about this one - its 130 words longer than the current lead but, still:

'The Byzantine Empire or Byzantium is the historiographical term used since the 19th century to describe the Roman Empire of the Dark and Middle Ages, centered on its capital of Constantinople. Whilst it was known as the "Empire of the Greeks" to many of its Western contemporaries (due to the dominance of Greek language, culture and population),[3] it was refered to its inhabitants simply as the Roman Empire (Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) or Romania (Ῥωμανία) and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors; to the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm, land of the "Romans").

'As a result of Byzantium’s evolving nature, many dates have been proposed as the start; Constantine I's transfer of the capital from Nicomedia to Byzantium (re-named Nova Roma and then as Constantinople, 330AD), the official supplanting of Pagan religion for Christianity (before the death of the last united Roman Emperor, Theodosius I in 395 AD) the fall of the Western Empire under Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD, or further in c 620 under the reign of Heraclius, whose sweeping reforms changed the military from an offensive Roman one to a defensive Byzantine one and the official language to Greek.

'By the death of Heraclius, the Empire had undergone Hellenization and Christianization whilst suffering huge territorial losses against the Arabs in the East and the Lombards in the West, accompanied by civil strife, religious controversies and Imperial intrigue. Reduced to her smallest extent in 717 AD, Constantinople nonetheless survived two Arab sieges, reclaimed much of southern Italy and took back substantial eastern territories. Under Basil II in 1025, the Empire was once again the most powerful state in Europe and the Middle East. However, the schism of 1054 opened Byzantium to western attack by the Normans, whilst the arrival of the Turks at around the same time saw the end of Byzantine supremacy in the East and the arrival of the troublesome Crusades.

'A temporary recovery under the Komnenian period arrested decline until 1181; the Empire slipped into decay once again. Turkish conquest of Byzantium continued, accelerated first by the sacking of the Capital by the 4th Crusade, then by the remnants of the established Crusader states. Byzantium continued to fight established Frankish states as the Turks slowly conquered Nicaea (1326), Gallipoli (1354), Kosovo (1389), Thessalonika (1430) and finally Constantinople itself in 1453. Greek rule continued in various other places, until the fall of Mystras (1460), Trebizond (1461) and Monemvasia (1471).

During her 1000 year reign, Byzantium shielded Europe from the expansionist forces of Islam, provided a stable gold currency, influenced the laws, politics and customs of much of Europe and the Middle East and preserved many of the Classical works; the Renaissance was already underway when Constantine XI, last Roman Emperor, was slain in battle defending the Capital as it fell to the Ottomans.

Tourskin (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It covers all the main points well. Well written. Dr.K. (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * My two cents:
 * Too much detail on the details of the history for the lead.
 * The "founding" should be addressed more loosely without so much detail. Perhaps something like the following.
 * An outgrowth of the eastern portion of Empire founded in Rome, the Empire's evolution into a separate culture from the West can be seen as a process beginning with Emperor Constantine's transferring the capital from Nicomedia in the West to Byzantium in the East (re-named Nova Roma and then as Constantinople, 330AD) and culminating with Emperor Heraclius' reforms which which changed the nature of the Empire's military and recognized Greek as the Empire's language.
 * That can probably be improved but you get the idea.
 * I agree with AdrianCo's suggestion that the lead should not try to directly address the debates about the "fall". Saying something more like the following seems more appropriate.
 * After final recovery under the Komnenian dynasty in the 12th century the Empire slipped into a long decline culminating in the capture of Constantinople and the remaining Roman/Greek territories by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.
 * This type of wording does not state an explicit cause, implies that the Empire somewhat self-destructed (which is true), and indicates that the final fall was a process that took place over a few centuries.
 * The paragraph on loss and recovery is too much. This should be simplified to simply say something to the effect that while the Empire suffered major setbacks and loss of territory during its lifetime it was the most powerful economic and military power in the Europe, North Africa, and the near East for much of the Middle Ages.
 * Minor: I'll re-iterate that the "dominance of Greek language, culture and population" comment is POV and misleading. But I expect still nobody agrees ...
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, cutting it down does sound like a good idea, but its very difficult to do so. Tourskin (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this is excellent; it answers the concerns re: the lead failing to summarize the article, and presents the bare-bones outline of the history very accurately. I also think Mcorazao makes some excellent suggestions; his sentence on the Komnenians to the 15th century can replace the proposed fourth paragraph. I also agree that the parenthetic aside about the "dominance of Greek etc." (a carryover from the current lead) sounds suspiciously like the grounding of an axe. That's what the Latins called it, and it's good to know, but doesn't need any exegesis in the first paragraph. I would also reiterate my opinion, often stated, that this whole "Byzantium bulwark of Christendom" line is kind of ridiculous. The Muslims made it to Europe anyways (Spain, Sicily), and after the Umayyads -- who may have had in mind essentilly overrunning Europe -- no later Muslim power showed any interest in pushing through Byzantium until the Ottomans. (i.e. the Sejluks just wanted Anatolia). --Javits2000 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Hard to say if the Muslims were interested in Europe Javitts because they just did not have access to it! We can however extrapolate that when the Muslims were in a position to conquer Europe, as with the Ottomans or with the Moors they attempted so. Meanwhile the Arabs constantly waged war were they could, against India, China with the aid of Turkish slave soldiers and more importantly against the Byzantine Empire, whose plurality in Greek culture and Christian majority make it somewhat of a European state. Finally, the Arabs made numerous attempts against southern Italy, Sicily, Crete, Greece (Sack of Thessalonika in 902), Sardinia and Illyria. The Holy Roman Empire proved relatively ineffective against these threats until Byzantium cleared Illyrium and southern Italy and the Normans Sicily. So you see, whenever the Muslims did have the opportunity to conquer Europe, they took it. Whenever they did not, it was because Byzantium stood in the way. I hope that this is a convincing argument . Tourskin (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I cannot see how the Umayyads and Ottomans were in any more "of a position to conquer Europe" than were, e.g. the Abbasids, Ayyubids, or any other number of near eastern Muslim dynasties who never attempted any such thing. And once the Ottomans made up their mind to do it (for very specific ideological reasons) Byzantium did mighty little to prevent them. To suggest that "the Arabs constantly waged war were they could" radically oversimplifies the foreign policy of a number of distinct states acting in various historical situations out of varied interests, and smacks of racial essentialism. But let's just say we disagree on this, and should certainly not let it stop us from going ahead with improving the lead. --Javits2000 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * At the risk of being a jerk, since one person indicated they liked some of my suggestions let me propose a rewording.
 * ''The Byzantine Empire or Byzantium is the historiographical term used since the 19th century to describe the Roman Empire of the Dark and Middle Ages, centered on its capital of Constantinople. Whilst it was known as the "Empire of the Greeks" to many of its Western contemporaries (due to the dominance of Greek language, culture and population), it was referred to by its inhabitants simply as the Roman Empire (Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) or Romania (Ῥωμανία) and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors; to the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm, land of the "Romans").
 * ''As an outgrowth of the eastern portion of Empire founded in Rome, the Byzantine Empire's evolution into a separate culture from the West can be seen as a process beginning with Emperor Constantine's transferring the capital from Nicomedia in the West to Byzantium in the East (re-named Nova Roma and then as Constantinople). By the 7th century under the reign of Emperor Heraclius, whose reforms changed the nature of the Empire's military and recognized Greek as the Empire's language, the Empire had taken on a distinct new character.
 * ''During its lifetime the Empire suffered numerous setbacks and losses of territory yet it remained the most powerful economic and military power in Europe, North Africa, and the near East for much of the Middle Ages. After a final recovery under the Komnenian dynasty in the 12th century the Empire slipped into a long decline culminating in the capture of Constantinople and the remaining Roman/Greek territories by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.
 * During her thousand-year reign the Empire, a bastion of Christianity and one of the prime trade centers in the world, helped to shield Western Europe from early Muslim expansion, provided a stable gold currency for the Mediterranean region, influenced the laws, political systems, and customs of much of Europe and the Middle East, and preserved much of the literary works and scientific knowledge of ancient Greece, Rome, and many other cultures.
 * This cuts out much of the detail and eliminates the specific years in favor of centuries so as to minimize debates on POV issues.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is not bad. I personally preferred a little more detail, but I think its ok. Tourskin (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I like this too. I would trim even more: we can start the "process" simply with "the foundation of Constantinople in 330"; the name predates "New Rome," in any case, which I think first shows up in the later fourth. Second paragraph strike "the" before Europe. Final sentence: cut "many other cultures." Byzantium was indeed a pluralistic society, but as far as literature goes they were preserving the classics. I think it's better to keep the detail to an absolute minimum, especially since the scroll bar will immediately lead to clarification.... --Javits2000 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Feedback:
 * The foundation of Constantinople is not universally agreed to as the origin of the Byzantine Empire nor does it by itself represent a sudden shift in Roman culture. I personally think that describing at a process is a clearer and less controversial way to describe its origins. I am not, however, married to the wording so feel free to tear it apart if you like.
 * Be careful on "many other cultures." It is tempting to simplify the Empire's contribution as preserving ancient Greek knowledge but this is oversimplifying things too much. As an example the famed Academy at Trebizond, renowned as a center of the astronomical sciences, largely became a center for studying Arabic and Persian science. The scholars of the academy helped to introduce some of Muslim science to the rest of Europe (e.g. Choniades introduced the astrolabe). I am not clear precisely how great the role of the Byzantine's was in transmitting Muslim knowledge to Europe (e.g. what percentage of Latin translations of Muslim scientific texts came from Greek and what percentage came directly from Arabic or Farsi). But there was a contribution there beyond just preserving the ancient texts (and bear in mind that the Byzantines themselves had lost some of the ancient texts and had to translate them back from Arabic).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I want more detail, Javitts wants less. Lets just keep it as it is as a compromise? I know that Mcorazao has no objections to his proposal.Tourskin (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's fine. To clarify I didn't want to change the wording about "process," which I think is the right term; I just wanted to cut "Nova Roma" and "Byzantium" and refer to the foundation of Constantinople, simply because "Nova Roma" is not used until the later fourth, but Constantinople is already used in 330. Thus: "the Byzantine Empire's evolution into a separate culture from the West can be seen as a process beginning with Emperor Constantine's foundation of the new capital of Constantinople in 330," or something like that.--Javits2000 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thats no problem for me. Lets wait for more comments (I have recieved word of Dr. K's approval), maybe a day or two and then I will boldly replace the lead. Then, if you wish, you may incoporate your edits Javitts, by all means. Tourskin (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Javits2000, sorry I misunderstood. I actually agree with just mentioning Constantinople without bringing up Nova Roma. I left it in simply because I figured I'd be stepping on toes. I'd actually rephrase as
 * As an outgrowth of the eastern portion of Empire founded in Rome, the Byzantine Empire's evolution into a separate culture from the West can be seen as a process beginning with Emperor Constantine's transferring the capital from Nicomedia in the West to Constantinople in the East (Constantinople's original name having been Byzantium).
 * Leaving in the mention of Byzantium in the intro is debatable and I don't strongly object to leaving it out but, based on the principle that the intro should stand on its own for the novice reader, it is useful to clarify exactly where the name "Byzantine" came from. But still it could be left out without much loss of clarity.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Alles klar. Note by the way that Nicomedia is to the east of Constantinople. "In the West" and "In the East" can simply be deleted. --Javits2000 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok people, I have changed the lead. Please add in whatever links, references and otehr changes you have proposed. Tourskin (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed reference to "Dark Ages" since that term describes what happened in the West in the face of the Barbarian invasions--it has no more to do with the Eastern Roman Empire at that time than it does with Japan. Instead, I changed the intro to state that the empire existed from Late Antiquity to the Fall of Constantinople--which still leaves room for the spectrum of academic opinion as to when the empire actually began. I also restored the term "Eastern Roman Empire" to the intro, which for some reason had been removed. It is a more accurate and realistic term than "Byzantine". "Byzantine" obviously has to be there since so many academics have used the term, but it is helpful for the reader to understand that the Occicentric view is not the only academically acceptable one. MishaPan (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who helped with the lead. It's way better now than it used to be. There should be something about Greek Christianity and the West's sack of Constantinople, but I understand that there's a Catholic editor goal-tending this page, and I'm not up for a fight. Leadwind (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with me being a Catholic. I consider the Greek Orthodox Church to be one of the most legitimate Churches in the world, on level with the Catholic Church. I don't give a damn what you think; you're inflammatory, personal comments are not welcome here. You have done nothing to contribute to the Lead, so if you do have something to add in, add it in and save your snide comments. I left you a very welcoming, reconcillatory message on your talk page, its unfortunate that you misinterpreted this and are unable to extend your hand out in friendship. Tourskin (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Instead of attacking my religion, why don't you check out the discussions below and see that there is an ongoing dispute as to what to call Byzantine religion. Tourskin (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) There is no reason to mention the personal beliefs of any editor, including religious. Everyone here has a myriad of beliefs of all kinds. This doesn't mean that they act as mindless promoters of these beliefs any time they get a chance. This was completely uncalled for. In addition Tourskin's record in editing this article is excellent and very constructive. That makes it even more unfair. Dr.K. (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sure my "Catholic" comment seemed out of place. Here's my context. I had long grief from a Catholic camped out on Purgatory, and still get grief from another camped out on Baptism and Original Sin. That's not surprising. But to have my good, referenced work on this page reverted out of hand by an editor who thought the old version was "perfect," that caught me by surprise. And when he posted to my talk page referring to his Catholic motivations, I was really surprised. I had expected this topic to be simply historical, innocent of sectarian conflict. But I expected too much. Again, the lead is way better than it was back when it was "perfect," so thanks everyone. Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I left you a message of friendship. I knew you had some grievances so I thought that saying we are all the same Christians and saying "Peace be with you" on your talk page was a good way of introducing myself.

 * As for reverting your edit, I already explained that it was done because no discussion took place and you accepted that as fair. The lead work done ;ater on was done by all with meticulous discussion. I think you misunderstand me. I have no Catholic motivations, but as a Catholic, I did not want to be on your wrong side, only as your friendly editor. Besides, if you post such views on a user page, its only natural that you will recieve friendly discussion about them. I hope we can put this aside now. Tourskin (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Studies
please make it blue, it is good enough for Oxford -- 78.55.226.144 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) PS de:Byzantinistik
 * Hey...they are good enough for other Univerisies as well(I know about Austria and Romania and presume Greece, Turkey and Russia to have Universities with such courses).AdrianCo (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've just translated the German wiki article, please feel free to improve, it's rather dry as it is. --Javits2000 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job. Dr.K. (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Byzantine Empire
is also missing ;-) -- 78.55.226.144 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC) PS it:Portale:Bisanzio/fr
 * Thank you for your great ideas. Dr.K. (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, i (user:Cherubino) am tinkering on de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Portale/Baustelle/Portal:Byzanz and just was surpised that there was no [byzantine studies] and [portal] on en:-- 78.55.226.144 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vielen Dank und Willkommen hier. Dr.K. (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dominance" edit
3rdAlcove changed the "dominance of Greek language, culture and population" clause in the intro to remove the "culture and population" portion. I personally think that is ok but I believe most authors disagree so this should probably be restored until there is a consensus. Regarding the comment about denying Roman heritage although this is true but it is a very sensitive and complex issue and, so, should not be mentioned without being very clear about the context. I believe the thinking has been to simply not mention it in the intro because it is so difficult to discuss tersely without being POV.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't understand this anti-Greek sentiment out there. Yes Byzantium had many peoples under her command but you see for most of her history her territory consisted of Asia Minor and Greece, territories which are very, very Greek. Tourskin (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else but I'll just speak for myself. I don't exactly disagree with you but these sorts of statements are inherently POV in they seem to imply one thing when the reality is much more complex. Social scientists in general try to be careful about discussing race and ethnicity today because races intermix and ethnicity is simply a matter of which group one chooses to identify with. When you say the Balkans or Asia Minor were very Greek what this is really saying is that the people who inhabited these regions all identified strongly with Greek history and saw themselves as descending from that culture. But, be that as it may, the ancestors of the Byzantines in these areas came from a lot of different places. It was not true that Asia Minor was mostly inbred for the whole Byzantine period. It's rather like saying that England has always been inhabited primarily by Englishmen. This is inherently true simply because any immigrants after a generation or two consider themselves Englishmen. Yes there are minority groups that maintain a distinct identify but it would be fallacious to think that anybody who considers themselves a true Englishmen must be directly and solely descended from the original Saxons who gave the country its language.

So in this context saying that the dominant population was primarily "Greek" is at best misleading and, IMHO, not all that meaningful. But again, that's just my opinion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Fair point. But I have a genuine question. To those who might find this POV, what does it matter if ethnicity is difficult to define? Anyways, how bout we replace the word "dominance" with "plurality". Tourskin (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * We should not base our discussions on "self-speaking" statements. We should base our understanding of the Byzantine Empire based on direct evidence (wherever available). Multiple historical sources indicate that the Byzantine Empire did have a "Greek identity" (i.e. ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and demographic) even if that identity took centuries for it to become more prevalent and pervasive in Byzantine affairs. Moreover, there are multiple Wikipedia articles that treat this particular aspect of the Byzantine Empire with sourced content (i.e. Byzantine Greeks). Nevertheless, to simply state that ethnicity is simply a matter of choice naively ignores (or at least downplays) the potential ascriptive nature of ethnic identity. Therefore, it is unwise to use the English as an example in order to prove that the Greeks possessed an unadultered form of non-ascriptive self-identity. History indicates that the Greeks have always possessed a multifaceted identity that embodies descent (i.e. kinship ties), culture, language, and religion. It is because of this multifaceted dynamic that the Greeks were able to preserve their identity and persevere in times of crisis. Of course, I really don't care about all of this since there are other articles that need improving. Later. Elysonius (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Plurality" of the population? I think that still suffers from the same issue. I don't really care that much so do as you like with this. My basic point is that the Franks were saying "They speak Greek and not Latin therefore they are not Romans" and this was no more fair then than it is now.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It was not fair, but the Franks said it and we being a frankish (western) wikipedia should include this.Tourskin (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dominance is a stronger term than plurality. Therefore toning down "dominance" and using the more neutral "plurality" sounds like a fair compromise. Dr.K. (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * "Plurality" seems too distant and ambiguous. "Presence", on the other hand, seems more straightforward while being neutral at the same time. Of course, that's just my opinion I suppose. Elysonius (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. Instead of "dominance", why not use "significant presence"? I know the phrase sounds kind of euphemistic, but it is neutral. Elysonius (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I like Plurality because its one word and its more specific - Greek may or may not have been the majority, but it had the most speakers. Tourskin (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I hate to insist, but implementing the term "plurality" would not coincide with the historical data that indicates a strong degree of "ethno-cultural dominance" on the part of the Greeks. The notion that the Greeks "may or may not have been the majority" is somewhat questionable since ethnic Greeks inhabited in overwhelming numbers the Greek peninsula, the Aegean islands, at least 1/3 of Anatolia (as well as its coastlines) not to mention the substantial Greek colonies in southern Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere. From a logical standpoint, all empires exhibit forms of "pluralism" and the Byzantine Empire is no exception to that general rule. However, the fact that the Greeks were the majority population of the Byzantine Empire should permit the use of the term "presence" instead of "plurality". Even if the Greeks were not the demographic majority of the Byzantine Empire, their culture was a dominant force (and not just their language). Elysonius (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. I forgot to apologize for inadvertently reverting the article when I implemented my usual minor tweaks. My mind wanders from time to time and I seem to have been "distracted" more so by the discussion rather than by the edits made by other users. Again, I deeply apologize. Elysonius (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I really dont care anymore to be honest. What I would like to add in before phasing out of this discussion is that Byzantium was greek through and through the end. Who cares what people were ruled by it, after the arab wars theres no doubt about its Greekiness. Yeh its a Roman empire, but a Greco-Roman one at that. Tourskin (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't care either. However, my insistence is mostly based on making sure that this article presents consistent and accurate data. That's all. Elysonius (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You don't have to apologise Elysonius. There is a discussion taking place and the issues are still debated, therefore why the rush to take out the elements of culture and population, especially as there is no consensus yet that they be removed. I also agree with you on the point of culture. The Empire was of course comprised of many cultures, but there is no doubt that Greek was the dominant culture. So I do not agree with the removal of the culture component. We had this discussion before and I participated in it. Now we revisit it under the guise of refurbishing the intro and presto, in mid discussion about refurbishing the intro, a valid reference to culture (and even population) goes out of the window. But as I recall the refurbished intro proposed by Tourskin still mentioned culture and population. So these reversals are premature. Dr.K. (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with your overall assessment Dr. K and support keeping the phrase "dominance of the Greek language, culture, and population". If you think about it, the same phrase can be found in the "Etymology" section of the article. It would not make sense to remove the terms "culture" and "population" from the phrase shown in the introductory paragraph while allowing them to remain in the same exact phrase shown in the "Etymology" section. That indicates inconsistency, which is unwanted in an article with FA status. Elysonius (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elysonius. The etymology section however was removed recently due to duplication as per this diff. So there is only one mention of this in the intro only. Take care for now. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Sure, no objections on my part but what does "Greek" mean in that context? Greek-speaking? If so, perhaps the mention of language covers it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question 3rdAlcove. However I think that Greek speaking doesn't necessarily denote Greek culture automatically. Since it is also cited I gather the citation mentions all three. Dr.K. (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek vs. Eastern Orthodox
Comment on Kékrōps' changing of the religion from Eastern Orthodox to Greek Orthodox:
 * Obviously one can get into a whole philosophical debate on the religion here. At the outset of the Empire one could say that it was simply "Roman Christianity" as East and West were one Church. However, even at the time of the fall of Rome the Eastern and Western halves of the Church were fairly divided. For the rest of its life Constantinople was the undisputed head of Eastern Orthodoxy. When the Empire fell apart, of course, the other parts of Eastern Orthodoxy asserted themselves and their independence but that was later. And there is the obvious aspect that Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox are modern inventions and had no meaning at the time of the BE.
 * In any event, from my perspective Eastern Orthodoxy is a single communion and, therefore, in my view one religion, the same religion as that practiced by the Byzantines. The Greek Orthodox Church is simply a division of that religion albeit a very significant one historically. Obviously most Greeks today would argue that Greek Orthodoxy is the division that inherited most directly from the Byzantines but many Russians and other Orthodox would strongly dispute that. For both those reasons I suggest that it is much more POV to say the religion was Greek Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. But as I say, since these terms are more modern inventions used to refer to the modern religions the argument for either one is a little weak to begin with. Probably the only label that would not be controversial is Christianity, which I would not object to either (actually regardless of what is kept it is probably good to add "Christianity" to the description anyway for the sake of the novice).

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason I changed it is because "Eastern Orthodox" refers generically to the modern Orthodox churches, most of which do not have Greek has their liturgical language. The Byzantine Church was very specifically Greek-speaking, and I think that needs to be reflected in the text. Furthermore, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the direct continuation of that church, is very much a Greek Orthodox Church. Perhaps it is an anachronism, in the sense of being a strictly modern convention, but then so is "Byzantine Empire" itself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think we can safely say Greek Orthodox, not only for the reasons cited by Kekrops, but also for those cited by Mcorazao -- the eastern Orthodox church was a much bigger tent (including e.g. the eastern patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), whereas jurisdiction over Byzantine territory was exclusive to the Patriarch of Cpl. Both would be technically accurate, but "Greek Orthodox" is simply more specific and informative. --Javits2000 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I'll respectfully disagree if only for the reason that many Eastern Orthodox would find it offensive (legitimately) to suggest that their religion is less descended from the Eastern Roman Church than the Greek Church is. But whatever ...
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Why would they find it offensive? All modern national churches, including the Church of Greece, are "less descended" from the imperial church, whose only direct "descendant" is the Church of Constantinople. Are you denying the continuity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making preemptive defenses against people who scream political incorrectness, lets just leave it at the truth as Greek Orthodox, period?Tourskin (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think there is an aspect to this debate that is not being considered (or, at least is only being considered from a modern, Western perspective): During the period under consideration, when the Church Fathers would use the term "Greek", it meant "Pagan". The people of the empire considered themselves "Romans" ("Byzantine" is another modern, Western term--which is actually innacurate, since the city had ceased to be called "Byzantium" in the time of Constantine I). The use by Westerners of the term "Greeks" to refer to the Eastern Romans was (rightly or wrongly) interpreted by them as an insult, and an attempt to hijack the heritage of the Roman Empire as an exclusively Western possesion by excluding the Eastern Romans from it. They would have referred to their faith as "Orthodox" (no "Eastern" and no "Greek")--so, why don't we simply say "Orthodox" (with a capital "O") with no further modifier? "Greek Orthodox" appropriately refers to the modern churches, rather than the religion of the Eastern Roman empire. Also, with regard to the argument above that "Greek" is accurate because that was the laguage spoken there: it should be remembered that the people of the empire spoke Greek in the Greek-speaking areas, but the empire was composed of many other nationalities and languages. And some of them chanted their services in languages other than Greek--but they were still Orthodox. MishaPan (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * But we're not using endonyms here; if we were, the article wouldn't be at Byzantine Empire but Romania. On Wikipedia, we adhere to common English usage, and in this case the conventional name of the Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox church is "Greek Orthodox Church", which incidentally is used interchangeably with "Eastern Orthodox" in much of the literature pertaining to the pre-modern era. As for the non-Greek-speakers chanting their services in their own languages, could you provide some sources? The Greek Orthodox liturgy has always been chanted in Koine Greek, never the contemporary vernacular form of Greek, and the church has always been very conservative in this regard. Even in predominantly non-Greek-speaking places like Antioch, Jerusalem and elsewhere, the liturgical language was always Greek. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Excellent point. Almost every Church out there for example claims to be the One True Catholic Apostolic Faith. Tourskin (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * As a native English speaker who is also an Orthodox Christian, I can vouch that "Greek Orthodox" is not common English usage for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. While many English speakers may mistakenly use the term "Greek Orthodox" to refer to the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, it is inaccurate--an inaccuracy that most modern encyclopedias do not perpetuate. As far as usage on Wikipedia is concerned, if you look at the articles Greek Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, you will see what I mean. As for the assertion that "The Greek Orthodox liturgy has always been chanted in Koine Greek, never the contemporary vernacular", this is also inaccurate (presuming that you are using the term "Greek Orthodox" interchangeably with "Eastern Orthodox"). The scripture and the divine services were translated into Slavonic in the ninth century by Saints Cyril and Methodius--and this was done under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The same holds true for the Baptism of Rus' (988), where Greek bishops were sent to a land where the services were done in Slavonic.  In the early history of the empire, the churches of Bulgaria, Serbia and Rus' were a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, though they were not within the borders of the empire. They were not Greek either by ethnicity or language, but they were part of the same faith. The Georgian Orthodox Church, which has existed since 327 does the services in its own language. Though I'm sure at one point they did at least a portion of them in Greek, there are quite ancient inscriptions and liturgical manuscripts written in Georgian (see photo, above right). In fact, nowadays, almost all of the various national churches which together make up the Eastern Orthodox Church do the services in a language understood by the people (though not necessarily the modern vernacular idiom). You are correct that the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem have continued to be under Greek hegemony, and are therefore rightly considered to be a part of the Greek Orthodox Church.  Their identity as "Greek" is the result of the complex history of the Middle East. After the Muslim conquests, these patriarchs had to depend upon Constantinople for survival. After the fall of Constantionople, the Orthodox peoples were treated as a seperate ethnicity by the Ottomans, and the Patriarch was made their enthnarch (ruler of the ethnicity). After this, their Hellenic culture came to be seen as part and parcel of their Christianity (see Millet (Ottoman Empire)). This is, however, breaking down in some places today. A debate about just this subject is ocurring within the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, where most of the senior clergy are Greek, but most of the faithful are Arab. MishaPan (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * "In the early history of the empire, the churches of Bulgaria, Serbia and Rus' were a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, though they were not within the borders of the empire." But this article is about the empire, not what lay beyond its borders. On the other hand, the non-Greek-speaking areas that lay within the empire did use the Greek liturgy, as they "had to depend upon Constantinople for survival" in your own words. Do you see my point? "The Georgian Orthodox Church, which has existed since 327 does the services in its own language." In other words, it has been a separate church from that of Constantinople since 327, and should not be conflated with the denomination mentioned in the infobox of this article. (Actually, according to the relevant article, that was the date Christianity was adopted as the state religion of Caucasian Iberia; the Georgian church fell under Antioch until becoming autocephalous in 466.) In order to demonstrate that the imperial church was not "Greek Orthodox", you would have to provide evidence that there were significant areas within the empire, and for significant periods of its history, that fell under the church's jurisdiction and used a non-Greek liturgy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aham, might I interveen. I am personaly a Romanian(that is both non- Greek and non-Slav but Latin) and an Orthodox Christian. Now, the use of Georigian in the Georgian Church is quite clear to me, and Georgia was for a time within the Empire(Iberia Theme). The Serbs had gained authonomy during the time of Saint Sava(during the Nicean Empire), and the Bulgarian Church camed under the Ecoumenical Patriachate`s direct canonical obedience after the defeat of Simeon...And Dobruja(yeah, yeah so what if I speak about the part of my country that was part of the Empire all the time :) ) was also always under the Ecoumenical Patriachate...Hm...but all those arguments appear not very important to me. The fact is that the greeks were the majority of the Empire always. However we can`t ignore the fact that there were more then one etnicity in the ERE. So: I would favour either "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox" or "Christian Orthodox" or "Greek Orthodox(with many important eparchyes with Serbian, Bulgarian, Georigian, Vlach, Syrian ,Arab and Iranian adherents)"(not necesarly in this order, and yes! Parts of Mesopotamia were part of the Empire => Iranians, although not many are included :) ). The last semes to be the correct one, but it is also a long one. What do you think? AdrianCo (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has diverged into some bizarre areas but it's interesting to hear the viewpoints. To respond to a couple of comments ...
 * that fell under the church's jurisdiction and used a non-Greek liturgy. - What is the big focus on language? The Greek Orthodox Church is an organization. The fact that it uses the Greek language in its liturgy isn't relevant to this discussion.
 * Regarding the discussion about the organization of the "Greek" millet under the Ottoman system this points the fact that a lot of where the Greek Orthodox Church gets its identity has to do with Ottoman history, after the empire.
 * Regardless of any of this, we're obscuring the basic questions:
 * Is Greek Orthodoxy a religion in its own right or is Eastern Orthodoxy the religion with Greek Orthodoxy as an administrative division? This a philosophical question but I would argue that if churches are in communion then they constitute one religion (otherwise you could equally argue that every Greek Orthodox congregation is a separate religion).
 * What is the proper way to describe the religion of the Empire AT THAT TIME? One could make the argument that the religion should be called "Roman Christianity" or some such thing since the modern communions represent complex political changes since that time. But realistically there is a direct succession from the Byzantine Churches. Certainly there is good argument that modern Eastern Orthodoxy encompasses the descent from the BE. The Greek Orthodox Church is more complicated because of the Ottoman history. It's not wrong per se to say that it is descended from the BE but one can poke holes in the argument.

As a point of comparison if I poke around the internet and lookup various books it is common to refer to the Byzantine religion as Orthodox or sometimes Eastern Orthodox but almost never "Greek" Orthodox.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete joke!! The term "Greek Orthodox Church" refers to the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece in the strict sense and in Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Churches (eg the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus etc) in general. It is a term that refers to an administrative subdomain, NOT a different religion, or dogma, or communion or whatever.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (it's in the -Byzantine authored- Creed for Chrissakes!) and from the point of view of us Eastern Christians, the religion is called "Orthodox Christian", period. However, since in Wikipedia we use the most commonly used English term, the same religious entity is compromisingly called the "Eastern Orthodox Church".

All claims above that somehow Greek Orthodoxy is different from Russian or Romanian or Bulgarian or Zimbabwean Orthodoxy are simply incorrect from any perspective (call it historical, religious, ecclesiological, whatever). A different leiturgical language does not qualify as a different religion, not in Orthodoxy that is. Personally, I find such claims offensive to my faith and even heretical (the heresy of "εθνοφυλετισμός" has been condemned by a Synod in 1872). --Michalis Famelis (talk)  17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * In response to Kekrops' recent edit as "Eastern (Greek) Orthodox", although I recognize that this is an attempt at compromise I think it still suffers from the same issue. So I'll still respectfully disagree.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also respectfully disagree. I just fail to understand what the modern (autocephalus) Greek Orthodox Church, established in 1833 and recognized by the Patriarchate in 1850, has to do with the Byzantine Empire, whose life had ended about 400 years before. Anyway, I don't see a consensus here towards Kekrops' opinion, and that is why I reverted (this was my only revert concerning this issue - I have no intention to initiate an edit war with a user I highly respect) his last compromise attempt.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Yianni, but "Greek Orthodox" has a wider meaning than the Church of Greece. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the direct continuation of the imperial church, is the original Greek Orthodox Church. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Kekrops, in response to your edit comment, whether you are referring to the Church of Greece or Greek Orthodoxy in general is beside the point. That was never the issue here. Constantinople was and is (theoretically) the head of all of Eastern Orthodoxy, not just Istanbul and Greece. Even that, though, is not relevant. The only question is whether the Churches of Constantinople and Greece constitute an independent religion.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It depends how you define "independent religion". All autocephalous churches are ultimately independent, no? In any case, I don't think the Greek character of the (East) Roman Church should be whitewashed, whatever the modern political concerns. The Roman Church was the progenitor of the Eastern Orthodox communion, yes, but it certainly wasn't itself multicultural. Multiethnic, clearly, but very monolithic with regards to its language and traditions. That is why the non-Greek churches broke away from it in the first place, isn't it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I *think* most religious scholars would argue that language and traditions do not define a religion and, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with religion (not that I am a religious scholar). The non-Greek churches did not "break away", per se. They simply asserted their right (perceived anyway) to administer themselves as they saw fit. But they never formally asserted any divergent doctrines or any beliefs (i.e. the things that constitute a religion). And even more than that all of the churches acknowledge the supremacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople (granted this a formality but still). Even if they didn't that would not make them separate religions but the fact that they do points to the fact that none of them consider themselves to be religiously independent.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why use present tense in the first sentence?
It seems to me that it WAS the successor state, not IS. Why is using present tense a good idea?90.190.225.121 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It is the successor state. Was implies that it has lost that status. Byzantium was a state, and it is the successor state to the Roman Empire. Its destruction in 1453 doesn't change the fact that it is the successor. "was" Might imply that it lost that status somehow. Although good point. Tourskin (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Populations
People, can I please see what references are used for the population numbers? Especially the 13th cent estimate!! Tourskin (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead revisited
(Inserting Mishapan's comments from above. I didn't see them before but they are relevant here.) --Mcorazao (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed reference to "Dark Ages" since that term describes what happened in the West in the face of the Barbarian invasions--it has no more to do with the Eastern Roman Empire at that time than it does with Japan. Instead, I changed the intro to state that the empire existed from Late Antiquity to the Fall of Constantinople--which still leaves room for the spectrum of academic opinion as to when the empire actually began. I also restored the term "Eastern Roman Empire" to the intro, which for some reason had been removed. It is a more accurate and realistic term than "Byzantine". "Byzantine" obviously has to be there since so many academics have used the term, but it is helpful for the reader to understand that the Occicentric view is not the only academically acceptable one. MishaPan (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting the edits by Mishapan to the intro. The following
 * The Byzantine Empire or Byzantium is the historiographical term used since the 19th century to describe the Roman Empire of the Dark and Middle Ages, centered on its capital of Constantinople.

was changed to
 * The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire is the successor state to the Roman Empire in the East, centered on its capital of Constantinople which existed from Late Antiquity until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. ("Byzantium" is the historiographical term used in the West since the 19th century to describe this empire).

First since the recent changes to the lead were the result of a long discussion please discuss a little before introducing more major changes. In any event, my concerns:
 * Characterizing the Byzantine Empire as a "successor state" is a POV that doesn't really agree with modern consensus (if you disagree please back up your view with references). Scholars simply see this as a later phase of the same state.
 * I think it is clearer to say that the Empire existed during the Middle Ages than to say that it existed from Late Antiquity to the Fall of Constantinople (and actually saying that it existed until the Fall of Constantinople is a little misleading since not all scholars would agree that you can say that is the proper "end" of the Empire).
 * Dark ages - I agree and disagree that this term does not apply to the Byzantines. The Byzantines did actually go through a period where scholarship waned which roughly coincided with the Western Dark Ages. But it is true that the term more applies to the West. Nevertheless it is strictly speaking not wrong to say that the Byzantine Empire existed during the period of the Western Dark Ages.
 * By saying "Byzantium" is a 19th century term you are implying that "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" were contemporary terms which, of course, is not the case.
 * I actually do think the term "Eastern Roman" should be added. I personally don't think the term "Byzantium" needs to be mentioned at all in the intro since it is just a variation on "Byzantine".

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with the Dark Ages thing; Byzantium suffered greatly under the Dark Ages for a period of time; it was from 700 - 800 AD in which the Byzantine population fell due to great insecurity, as a result lareg amounts of land remained un-cultivated and soldiers were scarce. Towns became more fortified and some cities were abandoned. Many roads were also left to the dusts of time but some of the more important routes were maintained. Tourskin (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the late empire
Can anybody provide specific sources (if printed with page numbers) verifying that this is indeed the flag of the Palaiologi. Currently I just see a book with isbn but no pages. IMO this is not satisfying for a FA. I searched bit the internet but I found no online source satisfying WP:VERIFIABILITY criteria.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The CRW Flags' Online site lists a couple of references (I don't these books so I can't tell you if these are valid or not).
 * Libro del Conosçimiento de todos los rregnos et tierras et señorios que son por el mundo, et las señas et armas que han (The Book of Knowlege of all kingdoms ...), published in 1350. Supposedly there are various recompilations of the material published in the 20th century.
 * Heraldry — Sources, Symbols and Meaning by Ottfried Neubecker, 1977.
 * Flags of the World gives the Neubecker book as a resource as well.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I taking this personally?
Why is there no link, anywhere at all in this 100kb+ article to Byzantine-Seljuk Wars? Tourskin (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from Spanish version
I've suggested on the Spanish version of this page that they adopt an introduction similar to the one that was recently adopted on this page and have been having an interesting discussion over there. In case anybody wants to offer comments I'll translate (my Spanish is mediocre so forgive me if I miss a subtlety or two).

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It is true that the article is in need of change. It has been two years since the majority of the contents were written. I'm taking your proposal and making some revisions to your proposal, some merely cosmetic, others that affect the contents more, trying to maintain the major points of the current edit. The English version looks correct to me with a few subtle exceptions: for example, saying that it was a the most powerful nation in Europe, North Africa, and the Near East during the majority of the Middle Ages is not quite appropriate, since its presence in North Africa ended in the 7th century. Here is my proposal:
 * The Byzantine Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire, is the historiographical term that has been used since the 19th century to refer to the Medieval Christian empire of Greek culture, heir to the Roman Empire, whose capital was in Constantinople (now Istanbul). While it was known as the "Empire of the Greeks" to its contemporaries in Western Europe (due to the predominance of the Greek language, culture, and population), its inhabitants referred to it as the "Roman Empire" (Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων) or "Romania "(Ρωμανία) and its rulers always considered themselves to be the direct heirs of the Roman emperors. In the Islamic world it was known as روم (Rûm, "land of the Romans").
 * As heir to the eastern part of the Roman Empire, its transformation into a different cultural entity from the West can be seen as a process that was started when Emperor Constantine moved the capital from Nicomedia, in Anatolia, to Byzantium (that was then rechristened as New Rome, and later named Constantinople), in the Bosphorus; it continued with the final split of the Empire into two partes, after the death of Thesodius I, in 395, and the later extinction, in 476, of the Western Roman Empire; and it reached its conclusion during the 7th century, under emperor Heraclius, whose reforms (particularly the reorganization of the military and the adoption of Greek as the official language), the Empire acquired a markedly different character.
 * During its long history, the Byzantine Empire suffered numerous setbacks and losses of territory, in spite of which it continued being an important military and economic power in Europe and the Near East during the majority of the Middle Ages. After a final recovery of its power during the era of the Komnenian dynasty, in the 12th century, the Empire began a long decline that culminated in the capture of Constantinople and the conquest of the rest of the territories under Byzantine control by the Turks, in the 15th century.
 * During its millennium of existence, the Empire was a bastion of Christianity, and contributed to defending Western Europe from the expansion of Islam. It was one of the prime trade centers of the world, established a stable gold currency that circulated throughout the Mediterranean region. Influenced the laws, political systems, and customs of a great part of Europe and the Middle East, and thanks to it many scientific works of Antiquity were preserved and conveyed.
 * What do you think? rupert de hentzau 17:42 9 apr 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply and forgive me again because I don't know the language well. My opinions:
 * "its presence in North Africa" - Yes, but that doesn't matter. During the majority of the Middle Ages the BE was still more powerful economically than the Islamic empires. It's military was less dominant but in general it was more powerful in the Sea than the Muslims (with exceptions at specific times).
 * "Medieval Christian empire of Greek culture, heir to the Roman Empire" - This implies things that are doubtful (or put a different away that do not represent the consensus of modern experts). It is true that the most popular language was Greek. And the culture of Greece was very powerful. But it was an empire of many ethnicities and many cultures (at the end it was more homogeneous). Also the change implies that it was a different state from the Roman Empire and this is not true (yes, the split created two parts but even if one can say that they were different states -- I don't think this is true -- the two were still the Roman Empire).
 * "it continued with the final split of the Empire into two partes, after the death of Thesodius I" - In my opinion this has too many details for the introduction but its ok if it is important to you.
 * "scientific works of Antiquity" - Well, this is true but they also helped convey the discoveries of the Muslims (and also of the Byzantines in the Middle Ages). That was the reason we wrote "many other cultures."
 * Thanks.
 * --Mcorazao (discussion) 20:28 9 apr 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi again.
 * I think it is preferable to eliminate the reference to North Africa. It is true what you say about Byzantine power in the Sea, but I don't think you can say that a country is a power in a territory that it does not occupy (and the Byzantine Empire was not present in North Africa, as we said before, after the 7th century). Like I wrote above, it seems to me preferable to say "an important/great military and economic power in Europe and the Near East during the majority of the Middle Ages."
 * "Medieval Christian empire of Greek culture" is a simplification, we agree, but it seems to me the text is appropriate for an introduction. Later, in the text, it can make reference to other ethnicities and cultures. The fact is that the Empire was Christian and it's official culture was Greek. That's why I insisted on leaving this sentence, although, if it seems better to you, it can be clarified, we can say: "Medieval Christian empire of primarily Greek culture".
 * With the expression "heir to the Roman Empire" I wasn't trying to say that it was a different state. I don't want to get into that debate. I was only trying to point out the continuity in the two. If it is possible to do this with another sentence, I have no objection.
 * It seems to me that it is necessary to mention the three key events in the formation of the Byzantine Empire: Constantine - Theodosius - Heraclius. On the other hand I believe that this is a bit of detail, for example, saying that the capital was in Nicomedia before. I believe that this could be removed.
 * "many other cultures" looks to me to be too vague an expression. Beyond that I'm not sure I agree anyway. Forgive my ignorance, is it really a lot of important discoveries from the Islamic world that were conveyed by the Byzantines? If there were then I believe it is preferable to speak directly about Islam; if not, I believe that it is better to not mention this in the introduction.
 * Regards, rupert de hentzau 13:36 10 apr 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi!
 * "North África" - Hmmmm ... perhaps there is a better way to describe it. But, for example, if I say that the Roman Empire was the most powerful nation in the world this is a correct statement. The RE did not exist in all of the world but it was more powerful than the other states. Similarly the BE did not exist in all of Europe but was more power powerful than the others in Europe. What we intended was to say that in that part of the world there was no equal.
 * "Medieval Christian empire of Greek culture" - well, yes and no. Realistically for much of the Middle Ages they rejected much of the classical Greek culture. The culture was more a "Christian" culture (something new that they invented) that had elements of many cultures. But the "Christian" culture was also not homogeneous. Each time it lost territory the culture became more homogeneous and at the end the culture probably was the same throughout all the Empire. What I am saying is two things: a) In my opinion it is an exaggeration to imply that the Byzantine culture was homogeneous. b) Using "Greek culture" without explanation can be interpreted in various ways. There were many important differences between the cultures of Ancient Greece, the Greek-speaking part of the classical Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.
 * "heir to the Roman Empire" - well, I don't like it a lot but it's not a big problem.
 * I don't care much. We put the information about Nicomedia only to explain where the capital was moved from.
 * Yes, it is vague and maybe there is something better that we can say. About the Muslims and the Byzantines ... what I know is this. During the "Byzantine renaissance" the Byzantines became experts in Muslim learning. At the beginning the Western Europeans learned about this knowledge from the Byzantines. Later they began to translate the Islamic works directly. But also there is a lot of knowledge from the Byzantines (i.e. not from Antiquity) that they preserved as well. And also the Islamic cultures were no just one culture. The other thing is that they didn't just preserve the knowledge for Western Europe but also for the Muslims (more at the beginning but the Muslims learned from the Byzantines at various times).
 * I'm also letting you know that I have translated our discussion in the English discussion.
 * Regards.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Language
An anonymous author made some significant changes to the Language section recently. Specifically,

 * Owing its origins to Rome the original language of the Empire was Latin and this continued to be the official language of the Empire until the 6th century AD when it changed to Greek (some historians mark this point as the proper "beginning" of the Byzantine Empire). Thus, amongst the upper classes of society and in towns Greek came into general use to the detriment of scholarly Latin. Even afterward Latin continued to be a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture (e.g. the last coins with Latin inscriptions were minted in the 11th century) and Vulgar Latin continued to be used by minority groups in the Empire (possibly the origin of the Vlach, or Eastern Romance, languages).
 * Apart from the Imperial court, though, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces (i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire) even before the fall of Rome had always been Greek. Indeed early on in the life of the Roman Empire Greek had become the common language in the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations. The language itself for a time gained a dual nature with the primary spoken language, Koine Greek, existing alongside the literary language, a variant of the ancient Attic Greek dialect. Koine gradually evolve into what became known as Medieval or Byzantine Greek, the Empire's standard dialect.
 * Aside from these, since Constantinople and other cities in the Empire were prime trading and manufacturing centers in the Mediterranean region and Europe, virtually every known language of the Middle Ages was spoken in the Empire at some time, even Chinese. As the Empire entered its final decline the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became synonymous with their identity and their religion.
 * Aside from these, since Constantinople and other cities in the Empire were prime trading and manufacturing centers in the Mediterranean region and Europe, virtually every known language of the Middle Ages was spoken in the Empire at some time, even Chinese. As the Empire entered its final decline the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became synonymous with their identity and their religion.

was changed to

 * Heraclius was the first emperor to replace the traditional Latin title for his office (Augustus) with the Greek Basileus (Βασιλεύς). This shift from Latin to Greek finds a parallel in the contemporary abandonment of Latin in official documents. Thus, amongst the upper classes of society and in towns Greek came into general use to the detriment of scholarly Latin. Even afterward Latin continued, however, to be a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture. Apart from the Imperial court, though, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the fall of Rome had always been Greek.
 * Early on in the life of the Roman Empire, Greek had become the common language in the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations. The language itself for a time gained a dual nature with the primary spoken language, Koine Greek, existing alongside the literary language, a variant of the ancient Attic Greek dialect. Koine gradually evolve into what became known as Medieval or Byzantine Greek, the Empire's standard dialect. As the Empire entered its final decline and the Empire's citizens was more culturally homogeneous, the Greek language became synonymous with their identity and their religion.
 * Aside from these, since Constantinople and other cities in the Empire were prime trading and manufacturing centers in the Mediterranean region and Europe, virtually every known language of the Middle Ages was spoken in the Empire at some time, even Chinese.
 * Aside from these, since Constantinople and other cities in the Empire were prime trading and manufacturing centers in the Mediterranean region and Europe, virtually every known language of the Middle Ages was spoken in the Empire at some time, even Chinese.

The edits alter some significant points and dilute some of the intended meaning. Rather than attempt to "merge" the authors intent and mine (I am unclear how to do that) I am reverting this for now. If that author is monitoring the discussion please discuss your thoughts here.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mcorazao, the edits were mine (I did not have my codes at work, and I edited as anonymous). First of all, is it you who added the section some time ago? From the first moment, I expressed my opinion that this section is not necessary, and it belongs in History of the Greek language as subsection; not here. In any case, after I first removed the section, I respected its presence and I just tried to improve it, and make it a bit more concise. I repeat all the time, that the article is getting again too long and that we may have a problem with FAR. So, if you think the language section is absolutely necessary, keep it but make it more concise, and include the majority of the current details in History of the Greek language per WP:SS.

Secondly, the article, Mcorazao, is FA and, therefore, it should adhere to the FA criteria, which is not the case with this section. What are the problems? Let me just mention some of them: I repeat that IMO the section should be a bit more concise, and most of its content belongs in History of the Greek language or Medieval Greek per WP:SS. In any case, however, it should be properly cited.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the author of the section break the citations' consistency? For instance, why didn't he merge citations 150 and 151 in one citation per 138 for instance? Why aren't the printed sources of citations 146-151 included in the References section? Well, I did included them, but unfortunately your revert deleted my edits; I am obliged to say that I am sorry for that.
 * Where is the ISBN and the other data of citation 147? And where is the page? I repeat that since the article is FA, printed sources should have pages. So, citation 147 should have the author, the book and the page per all the other citations' consistent formatting (we can't have one citation layout for this section and one for all the other section!), and the full data of the book should be included in the "References" section. The author of the section took care of none of these things.
 * The online source of citation 148 is again not included in the References section (and, of course, Template:cite web is not used). And again when I click on the link, I go to a page where I do not see the full article. How can I check the verifiability of your source? Probably, I have to check my CD version of Britannica.
 * In citation 149 we need page instead of chapter. And again the full data of the book belong to the References section.
 * Citation 151 is again a mess.
 * Let's go to the content: What meaning did my edits of the first paragraph change? I just placed an info from the "Heraclius" section here, which info clarifies the time and the way Greek became official, and provides sources (The first paragraph has no citation! Mcorazao, in a FA we are obliged to verify everything we write, using citations). In this way, we also avoid repetition, because the same info with the current status of the article is repeated three times: in the lead and in two section!
 * I have the right to remove any assertion or material which is uncited. So, please provide sources for the following assertions: "Even afterward Latin continued to be a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture (e.g. the last coins with Latin inscriptions were minted in the 11th century) and Vulgar Latin continued to be used by minority groups in the Empire (possibly the origin of the Vlach, or Eastern Romance, languages)." If verifiable sources are not provided, I'll remove this sentence.
 * I'll also remove any further material which is not properly verified. And to be more specific, I refer to assertions like this one: "Indeed early on in the life of the Roman Empire Greek had become the common language in the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations.", where the cited book has no page.
 * Please, provide proper citations as defined above for the following assertions: "Similarly Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian became significant among the educated in Egypt, Armenia, and Georgia, respectively. Contact with the Slavs and Vlachs, and incursions by the Arabs made the Slavonic, Vlach, and Arabic languages important in the Empire and its sphere of influence", and "As the Empire entered its final decline the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became synonymous with their identity and their religion." And after you provide citations, include the sources you use properly in the References section.

 * Yannismarou, thanks for responding. Most of your comments and questions here, although important, are tangential (i.e. they don't deal with the question I asked). For the sake of not confusing issues, I'll ignore those here. If you'd like to go ahead and discuss those (which I assume you do) let's open a new sub-section.
 * To respond to the relevant comments:
 * Even afterward Latin continued to be a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture ... - Fair enough but you did not explain your reasoning when you removed this. I'll add citations.
 * I just placed an info from the "Heraclius" section here ... - I have no issue specifically with mentioning Heraclius here. I will point out that I had earlier mentioned Heraclius and taken that detail out for specifically the reason that I was attempting to shorten the section. So in a sense you seem to be contradicting yourself. But if you feel that particular detail needs to be added, feel free.
 * You didn't offer an explanation of moving the final sentence. The sentence made sense in its original location but seemed rather meaningless in the location you placed it (i.e. mentioning the Empire's becoming linguistically homogeneous before mentioning its linguistic heterogeneity seems odd).

Thanks.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Mcorazao thanks for the response to my response, although you avoid to answer to most of the issues I raised. Allow me to point out that there are no "tangential issues", since they are all related to the article's quality, and to the sections's content, extent, and necessity. For instance, the issue of the very existence of this section, the following of the WP:SS guide and the section's relation with the History of the Greek language and Medieval Greek articles are nothing but tangential. After all, these "tangential" for you issues led me to edit this section, in an attempt to improve it and conform it with FA rules. Now, let's go to the three points you segmentally responded:
 * It was uncited, and IMO going into too many details. Add citations and we'll see. It is not bad to have the section a bit more concise like all the others in the "Culture" part of the article.
 * No, Mcorazao, I do not contradict myself, because, before adding this sentence, I removed the previous uncited and vague IMO introduction ("this continued to be the official language of the Empire until the 6th century AD when it changed to Greek"; "it changed to Greek" how? By a divine hand?!). So I did shortened the section and I did added citations, with what I believed to be a better introductory sentence compared to the previous one (by the way when you restored your previous version of the section, you forgot to restore my introduction you did not like to its previous place).
 * So you feel that this sentence makes more sense after the "chinese" and not after the "Koine", when it gives the sequence of the Byzantine linguistic tradition. Respectfully, allow me to strongly disagree.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I expect you to provide soon enough the missing citations and to fix the current problematic citations, because otherwise I'll remove all the uncited parts of the sections without delay and without further warning.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, debatable. The discussion of the minority groups (Vlachs) was added because another author was upset that the Vlachs were not even mentioned. The mention about the use of Latin ceremonially is there simply because it is a popular misconception (popularized to some extent because of agenda's by some earlier scholars) that the BE was always divorced from Roman culture and language. It is actually a valuable point to clarify for the uninitiated. But perhaps this can be stated more concisely.
 * As I said, up to you if you want to include Heraclius. I don't think anybody would believe that a divine figure was involved but if you do please add Heraclius back in. As I mentioned, I did have Heraclius in there originally.
 * Well, yes. I'm not sure what else to say. If it has only talked about the Greek-speaking populous up to that point then how is it meaningful to say they became more Greek-speaking?
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will address your concerns as I can. I will assume your attitude about this is "heat of the moment" and that you're not seriously proposing an edit war.

Late Antiquity Link
The Link is a little redundant since most of the article is a summarized version of the socio-political situation of the only civilisation in existance in the Mediterranean at the time, the Byzantine one. Tourskin (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that's why I find it useful -- it gives a different type of information on the period than this article, which is primarily concerned with political events during the era. --Javits2000 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Language section issues
This discussion above with Yannismarou forked into issues not related to that discussion. I am cutting-and-pasting here to discuss the other issues. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Mcorazao, the edits were mine (I did not have my codes at work, and I edited as anonymous). First of all, is it you who added the section some time ago? From the first moment, I expressed my opinion that this section is not necessary, and it belongs in History of the Greek language as subsection; not here. In any case, after I first removed the section, I respected its presence and I just tried to improve it, and make it a bit more concise. I repeat all the time, that the article is getting again too long and that we may have a problem with FAR. So, if you think the language section is absolutely necessary, keep it but make it more concise, and include the majority of the current details in History of the Greek language per WP:SS.

 * Secondly, the article, Mcorazao, is FA and, therefore, it should adhere to the FA criteria, which is not the case with this section. What are the problems? Let me just mention some of them:
 * Why does the author of the section break the citations' consistency? For instance, why didn't he merge citations 150 and 151 in one citation per 138 for instance? Why aren't the printed sources of citations 146-151 included in the References section? Well, I did included them, but unfortunately your revert deleted my edits; I am obliged to say that I am sorry for that.
 * Where is the ISBN and the other data of citation 147? And where is the page? I repeat that since the article is FA, printed sources should have pages. So, citation 147 should have the author, the book and the page per all the other citations' consistent formatting (we can't have one citation layout for this section and one for all the other section!), and the full data of the book should be included in the "References" section. The author of the section took care of none of these things.
 * The online source of citation 148 is again not included in the References section (and, of course, Template:cite web is not used). And again when I click on the link, I go to a page where I do not see the full article. How can I check the verifiability of your source? Probably, I have to check my CD version of Britannica.
 * In citation 149 we need page instead of chapter. And again the full data of the book belong to the References section.
 * Citation 151 is again a mess.
 * Let's go to the content: What meaning did my edits of the first paragraph change? I just placed an info from the "Heraclius" section here, which info clarifies the time and the way Greek became official, and provides sources (The first paragraph has no citation! Mcorazao, in a FA we are obliged to verify everything we write, using citations). In this way, we also avoid repetition, because the same info with the current status of the article is repeated three times: in the lead and in two section!
 * I have the right to remove any assertion or material which is uncited. So, please provide sources for the following assertions: "Even afterward Latin continued to be a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture (e.g. the last coins with Latin inscriptions were minted in the 11th century) and Vulgar Latin continued to be used by minority groups in the Empire (possibly the origin of the Vlach, or Eastern Romance, languages)." If verifiable sources are not provided, I'll remove this sentence.
 * Not provided ? The assertion: "Additionally common Latin continued to be a minority language in the Empire which many scholars believe gave birth to the Vlach languages" means: perhaps the Vlach languages may have an other origin than the common latin. Well: which other origin ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiridon MANOLIU (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also remove any further material which is not properly verified. And to be more specific, I refer to assertions like this one: "Indeed early on in the life of the Roman Empire Greek had become the common language in the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations.", where the cited book has no page.
 * Please, provide proper citations as defined above for the following assertions: "Similarly Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian became significant among the educated in Egypt, Armenia, and Georgia, respectively. Contact with the Slavs and Vlachs, and incursions by the Arabs made the Slavonic, Vlach, and Arabic languages important in the Empire and its sphere of influence", and "As the Empire entered its final decline the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became synonymous with their identity and their religion." And after you provide citations, include the sources you use properly in the References section.
 * I repeat that IMO the section should be a bit more concise, and most of its content belongs in History of the Greek language or Medieval Greek per WP:SS. In any case, however, it should be properly cited.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * To respond:
 * First of all, is it you who added the section some time ago? - Yes
 * From the first moment, I expressed my opinion ... it belongs in History of the Greek language as subsection - As I mentioned before I disagree. This section is not a discussion of the Greek language but is a discussion of languages as used in the Empire. Much of it does not even discuss Greek at all.
 * keep it but make it more concise, and include the majority of the current details in History of the Greek language - Agreed about conciseness. This section contains very few details about Greek compared to the Greek language history article so I'm not certain what point you are trying to make.
 * it should adhere to the FA criteria ..." - Agreed.
 * Why does the author of the section break the citations' consistency? ... - I don't know how you expect me to answer that but I'll try to fix the citations.
 * Where is the ISBN and the other data of citation 147? And where is the page? - Will look at it.
 * The online source of citation 148 is again not included in the References section ... - Will look.
 * In citation 149 we need page instead of chapter. - Why? If the full chapter is applicable why is that not appropriate to state?
 * Citation 151 is again a mess. - You flatter me. But not a particularly helpful comment. Anyway, will look.
 * I have the right to remove any assertion or material which is uncited. - In good faith, yes. It is generally more appropriate to add Fact tags and such and give the authors an opportunity to improve.
 * ...Greek had become the common language in the Church...", where the cited book has no page. - I'll look up the page.
 * "Similarly Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian became significant ... - Will look into it.
 * And after you provide citations, include the sources you use properly in the References section. - OK.
 * most of its content belongs in History of the Greek language or Medieval Greek - Again, don't understand the argument. Much of the content has nothing to do with Greek. The comments on Greek are relatively brief. In any even if you want to try to abbreviate more, please feel free.

 * For what it's worth you seem to be acting as though I told you that you cannot edit this section and I'll say for the sake of honesty that I take offense to the implication. Nevertheless, I appreciate your attempts to improve the section.

 * Thanks.

 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Inland Thrace and Serdica pre Symeon.
In 809 the Bulgarian khan Krum took the city of Serdica, modern Sophia, from the Byzantines. This strongly implies that before this date it was a Byzantine possession, why do no maps show the fact that a number of inland Balkan fortified cities, such as Philippopolis, Markellai and Makrolivadia etc were in Byzantine hands for much of the period prior to Symeon?

OK the Byzantine presence in inland Thrace was chiefly military and confined to strategic fortified settlements and the countryside was inhabited by Slav tribes, but there was a presence and it should be noted on maps.

Urselius (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps a bit of contested territory, so we could shade it in, just like for the 717 AD map. Tourskin (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== WHERE DID IT GO!!! ==

ITS NOT IN THE HISTORY SECTION - AAAAAA!!!!!

Never mind its back. Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a shade-in would be very appropriate. I discovered an article which gives the line of the Bulgar-Byzantine border (also demarcated by "The Great Fence") in the time of Khagan Omurtag: From Develtus to Makrolivada (now Gara Zlati Dol) on the Maritza River thence to a fortress towards the mountains NORTH of Philippopolis (ie this city was Byzantine). This can be found at:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XXV/XCVIII/276.pdf

Urselius (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Nice. Unfortunately I'm too cheap to subscribe so thats no good. Tourskin (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A commentary on the article can be found here:

http://www.promacedonia.com/en/sr/sr_app6.htm

perhaps you can get to this.

Urselius (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm a little busy right now with an Organic Chemistry exam, a Metabolic biochemistry test and I'm moving house soon too. I'll see what I can do in the weekend lol. Tourskin (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Population revisited!
I think Tourskin is correct. If there are no sources for these population figures, and especially the 13th century where I see no citation, then they should be removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Language Images
Yannismarou, I poked around for images to use in the language section. I turned up a couple of interesting ones although I am not sure if there are copyright issues (i.e. I don't see references that say they are "free" although because they are from public educational sources I am guessing their use would be allowed).
 * An early Coptic psalter (Coptic Museum, Egypt).
 * The Joshua Roll - an illuminated manuscript in Greek illustrating the old testaments (University of Arizona).

Having two thumbnail images like this side-by-side -- IMHO -- would convey a sense of the multi-ethnic nature of the Empire.

I'm not sure exactly how to determine whether the images could be used or not ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can use the Public domain image license . Dr.K. (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As in here: Image:Aleppo Codex (Deut).jpg

 * Thanks. Forgive my ignorance but how does this work? Is the idea that if somebody publishes a picture of something on the web and the subject of the picture is not subject to copyright then the image itself is considered public domain by virtue of the fact that the person who took the picture put it on the web (i.e. is it the same as quoting lines from a book with attributions to the author)?
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The picture of the art itself is public domain if the author of the art piece died more than 70 years ago. Therefore no matter who the photographer is the contents (art) of the picture are public domain. If no picture existed this would be a moot point and someone had to obviously take the first picture for it to be usable online. Dr.K. (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, these and one more image are now uploaded. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice pictures indeed. Excellent research by Mcorazao.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Άξιος. Dr.K. (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek name
Shouldn't the name of the empire in greek be Basileía Romaíon? It is stated as so in the etymology section, but in the infobox it is written Vasileía Romaíon, so which one is the correct one? Super Knuckles (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the letter "B"; in Greek "B" sounds like "V". Dr.K. (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So both of them, are correct, isn't it? Super Knuckles (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I would prefer the second version because it also provides the correct pronunciation. Dr.K. (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But if the translitteration should match (modern?) pronunciation, wouldn't you have to write Vasilía Roméon? [edit: I now see that this is already the case.] Personally I would prefer to stick to the 'classical' transcription, because we do this in most other cases. (For instance, we don't write Mikhail Paleologos but Michael Palaiologos.) Iblardi (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lines 72 and 73 of the reverted edit
I rather like this edit that was reverted with one slight change:

The term Byzantine Empire is a historiographical invention. It was never in use during the Empire's lifetime.

The term Byzantine Empire is a historiographical invention, and it was never in use during the Empire's lifetime.

Can we reach a consensus on changing this sentence? It does sound much better. Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rise of the Turks
Nothing is mentioned about Alp Arslan's successes against Andronikus I Komnenus in western Asia Minor. It was during this and Isaac Angelus' reign that the Turks began to infiltrate slowly but surely, a precursor to the heavier incursions conducted against the Nicaean Empire a hundred years later. Tourskin (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, isn't his image as a "True Komnenos" generous? He was much worse than Manuel; he failed to score notable successes and any efforts and was tortured to death in the Hippodrome. Manuel is in my opinion punished too harshly in this article if we are to leave Andronikus as a martyr of the Komnenian restoration. Tourskin (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised lead
My revision of the lead is here, on the left. I don't want to go into great detail as to why I think it's better, since honestly I think it speaks for itself. "Consensus" resulted in jarring, mismatched prose, full of needlessly complicated digressions and redundancy. That's exactly why I thought it was necessary to be bold. I'm going to put it back in soon, unless someone can state specifically what's wrong with my version and how what was pruned should stay. Slac speak up! 03:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Its redundant; it adds nothing more but yet its chronologicaly flawed; why do you mention the sack of 1204 before the Komenian restoration? Too much detailis given to the Empire's early start. Besides, like it or not concensus is how things work here. Its not bad, in fact its preety good, but not good enough to replace the current lead, which is also equally good and therefore there is no need to fix something that is not broken. Tourskin (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, so we can mention 1204 after the Komnemian restoration. What do you see as redundant?  I'm trying to reduce some redundancy. Slac speak up! 08:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I like the way the current lead is not because I contributed to it but because it lays it out in a better way; its better to leave the legacy to last and then list the events. Your lead has made more emphasis on pre-Arab invasions which is fine but remember that the Arab invasions destroyed the Eastern Roman mpire's power and turned it from a Roman offensive and large one to a smaller Greek, Byzantine, defensive one. Tourskin (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Greek-speaking Empire
Tassos re-introduced the "Greek-speaking" empire part in the article's lead with a long (and tiring IMO) list of citations. I reverted once the edit (but I will not come back again), and I'll explain why I regard both the "Greek-speaking" part and the long list of references as redundant:

1) In the same paragraph of the lead I read "Due to the dominance of Medieval Greek language, culture and population ... " So the lead underscores and emphasizes with the most vivid way not only on the Greek language, but on the Greek culture and population as well. Then why is the "Greek-speaking" part necessary to be added just two lines above? IMO it is redundant and makes this part of the (so much debated!) lead repetitive. The dominance of the Greek civilization is well-expressed.

2) Along with the "Greek-speaking" part I also saw the addition of a looong series of citations of mainly inline encyclopedias. Why is this necessary for something so obvious and acceptable, and already cited at the end of the paragraph. And for something further cited with highly esteemed printed sources in the "language" section. For all these reasons (extensive citing in the "Language" section, not necessary in Wikipedia to cite the obvious) and for the additional reason that per WP:LEAD the citing of the lead should be careful and limited, since it is not necessary to cite facts or assessments developed in the main article, I do not agree with the inclusion of these long series of references. They are some general inline encyclopedias (why are they necessary when we have the specialized printed sources of the "Language" section fully in compliance with WP:VERIFY?), citing nothing more than what is already in detail cited in the "Language" section.

These are my thoughts based on the rationale that repetitions, useless insistance on the obvious, and overlapping and overwhelming citing have nothing to do with this high-quality (even higher that after the closing of the FAR thanks to the efforts of users such as Tourskin, Mcorazao etc.) level of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Yannis. A clarification is needed here. I did not contribute either the recent or original "Greek-speaking" edit, the credit goes to this userfor the recent version. I simply restored it yet again. Recently I saw this this edit and I simply reverted it here. This slow motion dispute originally started around this point continued here and finished here. Therefore I thought this edit was being reverted after I had restored it with citations in the past and naturally I disagreed and wondered why the citations were removed yet again. If you see the edit summary here makes no mention of your redundancy arguments. Therefore I was acting from a historical perspective (since this edit was removed in the past and for the same, wrong in my opinion, reason). So although I was aware of the more recent edits by Mcorazao and Tourskin, I did not check if either of these gentlemen added the disputed "Greek speaking" characterisation, neither did I read the Wikipedia editor's manual  before I reverted. I was simply disagreeing with the edit summary provided and simply reacted to that as I did in the past. Your comments do raise a valid issue however. Does someone revert spontaneously to a given edit he/she disagrees with, for whatever reason, or should someone consult the discussion page, page edit history, article status, Wikipedia manual etc. before proceeding? The latter approach, provides a more global perspective and clearly, in an ideal world, should be preferred. Unfortunately in this case, as the evidence shows, I was caught in a time warp. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Tasso, I do not say that you are right or wrong, and you are indeed correct about the history of the edits and reverts, which should have been more clear in my above comments. After all I also reverted! And I do not argue that I am definitely right here. That is why after reverting (which was also a unilateral action from me open to criticism as well) I brought the issue in the talk page for further discussion and input from more editors. In any case thanks for your swift response to my comments, and, in general, for the constant and detailed surveillance of the article. Allow me also to clarify that my (unfortunate maybe) reference to the users above was general and not in connection with the edit in question, and to emphasize that not only them but many more users, including of course yourself, have greatly contributed to the article's continues quality upgrading.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all Yannis. Your great work here and well considered opinions are not in dispute in any way. I just wanted to clarify the issue. In fact let me make it clear that if the editor I reverted recently had used your arguments in his edit summary, I would not have reverted because your arguments present a concise and global picture of the problem which is easily understood and accepted. It's always a pleasure talking to you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Some data missing from the table
Firstly, about the religion: The Roman and Greek Paganism should be mentioned at the early stages of the empire.

As for the official languages, there should be a place at the table ,like in the Roman Empire, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Ok, this is to the people who are BOLD enough to change maps and introduce wrong information. 1) If you are a Balkan nationalist, we don't need ur maps showing how awesome Serbia or Bulgaria was. This is about Byzantium. 2) If you're gonn add a map, discuss. At least leave a note! 3) Don't add in incorrect information. The map in 1355 shows Galipoli still standing in Byzantine territory - that is a crucial mistake, the Turks sneakily took it after an earthquake. 4) Where are the Ottomans? We need to see the Turksih neighbours of ByzantiumTourskin (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The borders of Wallachia are funny, the Danube border is wrong, there was no Albania, the borders of Bulgaria did not look like that. In 1344 the region of the Rhodopes was ceded to Bulgaria, I have never seen the Bulgarian-Serbian border like that before and the Principality of Karvuna was not Byzantine. So it seems that the other map has fewer mistakes. --Gligan (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll take your word for it. But the missing Ottomans needs to be corrected. If you can, add it in somehow by editting the map. Tourskin (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked the user who had made the map to add the Ottoman territory. --Gligan (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Tourskin (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

About the map. Can someone explain why the map that shows the Byzantine biggest expansion was done by Basil in 1025? The Justinian conquest by his general Belisarius was far larger land empire compared to the map we have now. Here is a link to the maps I think is correct. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:ByzantineEmpireGE.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Justinien_527-565.svg --Titus001 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Another map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/East-Hem_565ad.jpg Check out the last link. It is very interesting since it shows many of the worlds empires in 565AD on one map. --Titus001 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * we tend to ignore Justinians reckless "expand at all costs" policy and focus on Basils much better concerted expansion combined with prudence. Justinian's empire was the largest, but not the greatest, Basil's was . Tourskin (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. The map though is factually inaccurate since Justinian made the biggest expansion for the Byzantines. That is fact. All the other languages of different countries have the map I posted. Only the english version seems to be incorrect with this history. It is irrelevant if Basil Empire> Justinian. The fact is that Justinian expaned the "Byzantine" Empire to it's greatest extent.--Titus001 (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tourksin. It is not a matter of territorial expansion, but we have to show the empire during its general peak, such as economic, cultural etc. And it is true that the empire experienced its zenith during Basil's reign. And after all it is not cited "The Empire's largest extent" but the empire during its highest peak. Dimboukas (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The largest terriotial expansion was under Justinian. Although the Justinian did use up all the money of the Empire, the fact is when he died the Empire was larger than it ever was or would be. Red4tribe (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can refer to the transience of Justinian's empire and its underlying emptiness in the text, but the map at the top of the page should be the current one of its greatest territorial extent. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A few users seem to want to add the Empire under Basil into the infobox in replacement for the map of the Empire under Justinian. I do not believe this is the right thing to do, namely because the Empire was at it's greatest extent during the reign of Justinian. Justinian managed to conquer Italy, North Africa and Southern Spain. In other maps for, other empires it can be seen that, despite during what period the Empire was most stable in, the map that shows the empire at its greatest extent will be on the infobox. Red4tribe (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree because although Justinian's empire was larger than Basil's empire, the Byzantine Empire reached its highest peak during the reign of Basil in 10 - 11 century. It is not a matter of territorial extent but a matter of economic, military and cultural power which Basil's empire enjoyed. The reader has to understand that the empire managed to become the most powerful state of its time with Basil II and the Macedonian Dynasty. It is not proper to judge the power of a state only by its extent which Justinian achieved but this expansion exhausted the empire. The History teaches that the empire reached its acme during the Macedonian Dynasty and the map of the infobox must depict a map of the state under its peak which must not be confused with the geographic extent. Dimboukas (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is split on this matter: maps do not show the cultural, economic or even military height of an empire; this is determined in statistical information regarding gold coin production, troop levels and patronage of arts, so this somewhat weakens the argument to show the Empire's height because it is deceptive. But then again, should we show the Empire at its best or at its territorially greatest extent? Another point, unlike Basil II's empire, Justinian's Empire may not be accepted by all academics as being Byzantine, but not I, for I think that it is Byzantine. I want to hear from others first.Tourskin (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the map of the empire at its greatest extent under Justinian. Flamarande (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As it currently stands, there is no Justinian map, but the 1025 Basil map is shown twice in the article, so on the point of redundancy and inclusion, the 565 AD Map is better in this regard. Any one else care to offer their opinion?Tourskin (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand why they are using the map they have now. Basil did take the Byzantine Empire to it's zenith in power. I just found it odd since for other empires for wiki people always show the greatest extent for an empire. --Titus001 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs more time to decide which map to use, but I do not understand why the original map was removed before anyone reached an agreement. Red4tribe (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they could, are encouraged to do so under the "Be bold" policy, and because there is no true need to debate everything exausthingly? Flamarande (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the question of which stage shows a more powerful empire, an argument in favour of this choice might be that the period around 1000 can be considered "classical" in that everything that we typically associate with "Byzantium" is in place: the absolute dominance of the Greek language, fully evolved court rituals and Byzantine diplomacy, the uncontested position of the city of Constantinople as the empire's centre (Justinian's empire still included Alexandria and Carthage), the themes system etc. The 1025 map shows this fully differentiated Medieval empire at its  territorial zenith. Iblardi (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do leave it at 1025, then I would to like to see the 565 AD map somewhere in the article. So far I count:

 * Supporting 1025:
 * Dimboukas
 * Iblardi
 * Tataryn77
 * Meneleos
 * Beleverti

 * Supporting 565:
 * Red4tribe
 * Titus001
 * Flamarande
 * Michael X the White
 * Yannismarou
 * Talessman
 * Tourskin
 * LlywelynII

 * Add your names to the list too or change them if you want to. My opinion is leaning towads supportng the 1025 AD map, so that means we'll have a tie but only if we can dd in the Justinian map elsewhere. Tourskin (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also in support of the Justinian map and I kindly ask for the last time Dimboukas to stop act unilaterally.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I too clearly support the Justinian map, which is anyway historically regarded as the Empire's territorial peak. Why not adding the 1025 map elsewhere?--Michael X the White (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be better to use the 1025 map. First of all I agree with Dimboukas because the Byzantine Empire should not be depicted during its greatest extent but during its highest peak, because the reader has to understand from the first sight the best period of the empire. Second, many historians claim the Eastern Roman Empire of the 5 and 6 centuries cannot be characterized as Byzantine. Only after Heraclius and the dominance of Greek culture and language the Roman Empire is called Byzantine. That's because it is better to use that map (or and that) because it is clearer about the medieval empire than Justinian's empire. Meneleos (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that no-one can make a GIF map, so I propose that the best map is that of 1025. Beleverti (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like it should remain as the Justinian 565 AD map, or whatever year the map intends to show. I myself have come to no conclusion, 1025 is truly Byzantine and Byzantium's finest, 565 AD is Byzantium's largest but still a little Roman, but not for me. Thanks for whoever participated. Tourskin (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having a Byzantine Empire article - as incorrect the term "Byzantine" really is - is to make a clear distinction between the Roman Empire of classical and late antiquity, and the Roman Empire of the dark and medieval ages. Justinian's empire is too similar to the late unified Roman Empire - being roughly only 150 years apart from Theodosius' unified empire. Basil II however, succeeded in reversing the continued erosion of the empire that had began, well, after Justinian's death. The 1025 map shows the apogee of the anachronistic empire that this very article is trying to advertise. --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why not show the Empire under Heraclius' post-Persian War but pre-Arab war? I think the argument about showing the most powerful state is a little slim, maps show territorial extents, not power. The two can be in conflict, like the Mughal Empire which began to collapse when it started its southward expansion. Tourskin (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have a Heraclius 627 map, but at this point I'm content with both maps being up instead of arguing over which is a more accurate portrayal of the Byzantine Empire at it's peak. Heraclius, nevertheless, lost (major) territory during his reign whereas Justinian and Basil II did not. A year during Heraclius' reign should however be given as the start of the "Byzantine" Empire, considering it is he who made most of the reforms that we today somehow justify as a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. --Tataryn77 (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think 565 should be the infobox map, because it truly was the Empire's largest territorial extent. Honestly I believe the Byzantine article is important and large enough, and lasted so long, that it should include several maps (1. 330, 2. 565, 3. 750, 4. 1025, 5. 1210, 6. 1275, and 7. 1450). The map thumbnails can be made small enough to fit snugly within the article, without looking out of place. Currently there are 17 maps in the article.

Alternatively, if we could get an animated GIF image, we could reduce the number of maps to 3 (565, 1025, and GIF of 330-1453). I don't yet know HOW to make animated GIFs, but I could learn... Thomas Lessman (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the best idea because I usually get tired when I wait to see all the maps which are included in an animated map. Dimboukas (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dimboukas, first of all, read this policy, and understand that, in case there are disagreements, a change can be implemented only if there is consensus. Therefore, what is tiring is your insistence on reinstating the map that you like or to put the two maps together (making the infobox extremely long and "tiring") as some kind of compromise you decided yourself and implemented yourself, despite the fact that none of your proposals succeeded consensus here until now. Personally, I think that you should refrain from such tactics. Now, about Talessman's proposal, as far as I am concerned I like it, and if most of the users here agree, I have no problem to see it implemented. Although I must admit I've seen a trend in Wikipedia against this kind of animated maps. As a matter of fact, some time ago I had seen such a map in our infobox, but, when I checked it again a few months later, I saw it replaced by the current more "banal" map!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do not think that both maps make the infobox long and tiring. After all, as it is possible, why not adding both maps? I agreed to add both maps. Why don't you retreat at all? Dimboukas (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to push forward the compromise suggested above that we have a GIF of Byzantium in 330, 476, 565, 626, 717, 867, 1025, 1091, 1180, 1204, 1328 and finally 1453. That sounds like a hell alot of dates, but I really think they each have a defining part explaining what Byzantium is, for if Byzantium was born in 330 AD, why not show Constantine's empire, that was Byzantium at her strongest and her greatest! Finally may I make the point that I don't think maps have the purpose of showing power but territory, so territorial extent not power-projection is what I am for if we have to boil it down. And for this reason I choose 565 AD but I prefer this compromise of a GIF. Tourskin (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though I do agree with your analysis of the purpose of a map, your proposal of including so many dates (and frames) on a single GIF would make it more like a movie. Maybe we can embed it as a video instead. Dr.K. (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We SHOULD have a movie!Tourskin (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea (lol) Dr.K. (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but I don't know how to do it(although I'd like to learn) so it'd be up to you. Red4tribe (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do it either. But as a minimum it's an amusing idea. Dr.K. (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do know how to do it, but wouldn't a gif be much smaller and faster to load? What's the advantage to embedded video format? -LlywelynII (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 7