This is an archive of past discussions about Byzantine Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is a tendency in books to produce maps that illustrate a point in time when a crisis is occurring. This often gives a very false impression of the "normal" extent of any power. In particular maps of Early Medieval Bulgaria tend to show it at its maximum extent. There is also a tendency to note when a region or city falls to violent assault and not to note that it reverts to its former owners by treaty a few years later. This is particularly true of Bulgarian conquests from Byzantium.
The map of the Empire at the time of Leo III is a case in point. Because of its proximity to the city of Constantinople Thrace was viewed as an important area by the Byzantine authorities. Though the Bulgars conquered Philipopolis, and even Adrianople numerous times these usually reverted to Byzantium within a few years. Throughout the early Middle Ages Byzantium usually retained control of a series of fortified towns stretching from Develtus on the Black sea coast through Thracian Berrhoia and Marcellae to Philipopolis. At the time of Leo, Sardica (mod. Sofia) was still held by the Byzantines. Some of these fortress-cities were outside the theme system so suffer under a double "invisibility."
I would say that the map on the article is rather misleading in this respect.
See: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century
by John V. A. Fine, also Warfare, State And Society In The Byzantine World 560-1204
by John Haldon.
You appear to contradict yourself. You say that the maps portray a time of crises. It is during this time of crises that these cities you speak of are not in Byzantine hands.Tourskin03:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
K look, I don't know what u r saying really. The crisis points show just how dire the situation was. If these were reverted back by treaties or by other actions, the article emphasizes. Or else add it in. Add in whatever information you can, but its not suppose to mislead but show how low Byzantium was.Tourskin21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a tendency in published histories by serious, and in other ways excellent, historians to just trot out the maps produced for Ostrogorski's book (good though that book is in many ways). This is the case even when the text of the books directly against the maps included.
For example the settlement at end of the Byzantine-Hungarian confict at the time of Manuel Comnenus resulted in all Croatia and Dalmatia being returned to Byzantine control. Ostrogorski's map for the period just shows Serbia and the area of Sirmium (Sremska Gora) in Byzantine hands, and later books just repeat this map and its error again and again.
How many maps of the Armorian and Macedonian period show the Thracian city of Philippopolis (Plovdiv) being in Byzantine hands? Very few, but there are often references to Byzantine emperors (esp. Theophilus) transporting Armenians and Paulician heretics from the eastern frontier as soldier settlers to the city and its environs (this is how Bogomilism was spread to later Bulgaria). Indeed when Svyatoslav of Kiev sacked the city at the time John Tzimiskes was usurping the throne from his cousin Nikephoros Phokas it was a Byzantine city (this is why Svyatoslav treated the inhabitants so badly - Bulgaria had already sued for peace and the Bulgarian royal family were in his hands, if it had been a Bulgarian town it would have opened its gates to him).
On the whole I would say that a map which shows the situation when a tract of land or a city was in Bulgarian hands, when this was the case for only one decade in a century, then the map is misleading as to the real political situation.
These maps should be given an explanation. I was under the impression that maps of the mid-late Komnenian period exaggerate territorial acquisitions to praise the Komnenian restoration. But sure whatever, we need to add in the info, so please, do so.Tourskin21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are right about the Comnenian maps, they usually include Antioch, which was at best a dependancy of the Empire not an integral part. Also in Manuel's reign the region around Ankara was given to the Seljuc prince Shahinshah as a Byzantine vassal, but this is not shown on maps. What isn't shown, on the plus side, is the authority the Empire sometimes had over what is now Wallachia, then under Pecheneg and or Cuman control; in the 1160s Manuel sent an army right across Wallachia into Hungarian Transylvania, hardly possible if Manuel didn't have some authority over the inhabitants.
For the earlier period (Isaurian) the tendency is to minimise the area the Empire had authority over in maps, especially in the Balkans. Yes the Slavs settled the countryside but in the Southern Balkans they were often forced to admit imperial authority and give tribute. Also though aggressive Bulgar khans, such as Krum, did conquer large parts of southern Thrace, the borders were usually adjusted back sometime later by treaty, this re-adjustment is usually overlooked on maps. The maps of this period in the article don't show the unique position of Cyprus which was held as a sort of condominium jointly by the Empire and the Caliphate, strange as that may seem.
Really? That does sound absurd. Caliphate de facto authority no longer extended to the mediterranean coast after the 10th century, due to the rise of Fatimids. Unless u r calling Egypt the Fatimid Caliphate? In any case it was Byzantine enough for Isaac Komnenus to sieze it in a rebellion. Tourskin06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the maps in the article of the Isaurian period, when Cyprus was a de-militarised zone with taxes going to both the Empire and the Caliphate. The political agreement was arranged late in the Heraclian Dynasty period (I think).
Urselius08:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Makes it stand out. If its white its very boring. Sorry if this sounds like a trivial explanation but blue is different from white yet still readable. Tourskin21:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The current structure of the article Byzantine Empire does not work. The prose does not flow neatly from the Komnenian period into the Angeloi period as it should. When reading the article, the reader goes from a positive assessment of the achievements and significance of the Komnenian period, to a sudden whirlwind of territorial losses and disasters under the Angeloi, in barely 3 sentences. There is no adequate explanation of the change in imperial fortuneres, or any introduction to the new dynasty. All the article says is this :
"When Manuel died on 24 September 1180, his son and successor was a minor, and his unpopular regency government was overthrown in a violent coup d'état. This troubled succession weakened the dynastic continuity and solidarity on which the strength of the Byzantine state had come to rely.[88] Béla III reincorporated Croationa territories into Hungary, and Stephen Nemanja of Serbia declared his independence from Byzantium and founded a new kingdom. By the revolution of 1185 the dynasty of the Angeli was elevated to the throne. The reign of Isaac II Angelos, and, still more, that of his brother Alexios III, saw the collapse of what remained of the centralized machinery of Byzantine government and defense. Although, the Normans were driven out of Greece, in 1186 the Bulgars began a rebellion that was to lead to the formation of the Second Bulgarian Empire. During the Third Crusade Richard I of England appropriated Cyprus from its ruler, Isaac Komnenos. The internal policy of the Angeloi was characterized by the squandering of the public treasure, and the fiscal maladministration. Byzantine authority was severely weakened, and the growing power vacuum at the centre of the empire encouraged fragmentation. There is evidence that some Komnenian heirs had set up a semi-independent state in Trebizond before 1204.[89] According to Alexander Vasiliev, "the dynasty of the Angeloi, Greek in its origin, [...] accelerated the ruin of the Empire, already weakened without and disunited within."[87]"
This is not acceptable. It is not good enough to simply state that these various disasters took place; without any explanation of their significance, they are almost worthless. As it stands now, the reader is confronted with a confusing, poorly explained and sudden change from imperial success under the Komnenoi to imperial collapse under the Angeloi, without any real explanation of WHY and HOW such an important change happened. This is not adequate for the needs of a Featured Article, nor is it sufficient for the reader. I propose that the section be rewritten, in a style that does not simply bombard the reader with a baffling array of names and dates, but instead actually explains what was happening and why.
There should be some mention of how the Komnenian system had weakened the infrastucture of the Empire, before the advent of the Angeloi. The central beaurocracy had been weakened and dynastic connections were increasingly important in securing high office, the semi-meritocratic system of earlier centuries had largely disappeared. Venice had been allowed to take over Byzantine trade routes and to monopolise trade with the Latin West, to the impoverishment of native industry and trade. Manuel's liking for "Franks" had introduced an element of mercenary Westerners in the Byzantine military, the loyalty of which might be questionable. Like in the West the Byzantine system of politics had been personalised to a great extent under the Komnenoi, loyalty to the person of the emperor assumed a greater importance than loyalty to the state or office of the emperor. The system worked well when the emperor was strong and well respected, but in times of political strife or when the emperor was a minor or weak the system tended to break down. Alexius debased the gold "besant" and it lost its position as THE standard currency of the Mediterranean world, the economic ramifications of which are hard to trace but were not calculated to be good in the long term for the Empire.
You have raised some excellent points, Urselius. I strongly agree with your point about the weakening of meritocracy and the negative impact of a government increasinly based around dynastic connections. However, I disagree about the impoverishment of native industry and trade. In fact, there is strong evidence for powerful growth in the Byzantine economy during this period, the growth of Byzantine wealth, industry and urbanisation. This information can be found in Alan Harvey's excellent study of the Byzantine economy, "Economic expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900-1200". Nevertheless, I am very much in agreement with you on the matter of the personalisation of politics under the Komnenoi, and your assessment of its consequences. As for the debasing of the coinage, I thought this was more of an issue in the 13th century and after than in the 12th. Alexios restabilised the currency, and brought a new solidarity to the Byzantine economy after a period of major insecurity and chaos. However, I am certainly open to further discussion on the subject; can you give more detail on the issue of Byzantine coinage and its position in the Mediterranean world? Overall, an excellent post; I look forward to further discussion. Bigdaddy120419:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a thread of social and political development that can be discerned running through the Middle Byzantine period. The Macedonians managed to finally introduce the dynastic principle in East Roman governance which allowed a modicum of stability at the top. However, the principle of heredity was largely restricted to the position of emperor and the meritocratic beaurocracy retained its influence. A sort of beneficent balance was struck. However, when the dynasty failed due to a lack of heirs the beaurocracy became paramount, but it proved totally incompetent in the face of military crisis. Isaac Comnenus was an able soldier and he stood a reasonable chance of restoring the Empire's fortunes when he placed himself on the throne but he was wheedled into premature abdication by that arachnid urban sophisticate, Psellus. The beaurocracy then presided, through the agency of weak figureheads, over the ruin of the Empire. It is no surprise that Alexius when he became emperor distrusted the functionaries in Constantinople and largely replaced them with members of his extended family and their dependants. This transformation of the Empire into a family business, however, though it proved to be stronger in the face of external military threat than the rule of beaurocrats, was even more dependant on strong leadership at the top. When that disappeared on the death of Manuel the heirarchy of sub-dynasties (Arpads, Nemanjids, Gabras, Laskarids, Vatatzes, Kontostephani, Cantacuzene etc etc) fell apart and the Empire began to lose its outer satellites and provinces and was fatally weakened at the centre.
I agree that the Komenian economy was relatively strong, but it would have been even stronger if its external trade had been retained in native hands and not been allowed to fall under the control of Italians. How the Italian communes were detested in Constantinople is shown by the numerous riots and wholesale murders the Italian trading quarters suffered during the period. Had the Italian intervention in the economy of the Empire been seen as beneficial by the natives I doubt if such ferocious antipathy would have been evident.
As far as I know Alexius was the first emperor to debase the gold coinage since Anastasius refounded the coinage in the later fifth century, that was a very long time and had seen many extreme crises come and go. The loss of trust in a coinage which had been so stable for so long must have had unfortunate repercussions, inflation being the most obvious. There was certainly an inflation of titles in the Byzantine government system "Panhypersebastos" springs to mind.
Hey everyone. I've been away for a long time helping out Assyrian articles.
Anyways, Urselius Alexios did not debase the gold coinage system. All of my references do not mention this. Instead it speaks of Andronicus II who debased the coins, contrary to the popular myth that it was Michael VIII. Furthermoore, the differences between the Komnenians and the previous rulers of Byzantium I believe is being slightly over-exaggerated here. The way the info is presented is like u r suggesting that the system of the Komnenians was a temporary short term solution. It worked for as long as there was a strong emperor. And just as the Macedonian dynasty collapsed due to a lack of decent heirs (of Basil II primarily) so too did the Komnenians fall for the same reason.
The Angeloi were not without success - they managed to drive out the Normans from the Balkans completely, though this may have been due to previous efforts of the Komnenian. In any case I hereby:
It was indeed an extemporised short-term solution, Alexius lurched from one crisis to another. The fact that his emergency solutions worked ensured that they became a "system" and this system then lasted for a considerable time. The work of Nikephoritzes meant that Alexius had the basis of a reasonable army at the start of his reign. This army was essentially similar to that of Romanus Diogenes and even Basil II, but it was destroyed at Dyrrachium by the Normans. Alexius then had to scrape together whatever troops he could, from the followers of the dynatoi and garrisons, whilst trying to fund the creation of new central regiments (such as the Archontopouloi). The Byzantine army at the end of his reign was reasonably efficient but it was a quite different beast to what it had been in the past. The same can be said for his effects on the political and administrative governance of the empire.
The nomisma of Basil II was 95% gold that of Alexius (1081-92) was 10.5%. Admittedly Alexius reformed his coinage in 1092, and the rot had started in the reign of Constantine IX, but the nadir of purity was reached early in Alexius's reign.
I would be grateful if you could provide evidence that it was Alexius who debased the gold to the figures you are suggesting.Tourskin21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure, a useful list of the gold purity of Byzantine coins can be found at:
Alexius introduced the hyperpyron of 85% purity in 1092, but by then he had presided over a decade of the most debased coinage the empire had seen to date.
Impressive website. Very interesting to see the gold composition change over time. Interesting to see how Basil II made it good again and how, leading upto Manzikert, it fell! Nonetheless, Alexius generally speaking made Byzantine currency go from 35 % gold before his reign to 10% gold his reign early on but then brought it back up to 85% gold -comparable to pre-Manzikert times. After 1092, he reigned for 26 years, so a decade of debasing may have been countered by 26 years of good work?Tourskin00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Imagine if the American dollar dropped to one tenth of its present value for a decade, the loss of confidence in the currency would be very substantial and damaging. It would be a long, long time for confidence to be re-esablished.
EXTRA POINT - I just bought a great new book: A short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich. Its great and got loadsa stuff. I never realized that a Norman invasion of 1184 - 1185 came close to besiegeing Constantinople (Thessalonika was sacked with ease). It was Isaac Angelus who drove them back (well he sent a general, did not do it personally), so perhaps he wasn't so useless after all.
Anyways, its got tons of stuff and so I hope I can add in Angeloi stuff.
Well the article won't be improved by itself so if n=o one is going to complain than I will add it in. I think 5 days is long enough waiting time. Tourskin00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your version overexpands the article, brings it to 147 kbs, does not respect WP:SS and presents prose problems. If a re-writing is indeed regarded as necessary, yes, initiate it, but there is no reason this rewriting to lead to the creation of such a huuuuge article. At least, this is what I believe, recognizing Tourskin's will and efforts to improve the article. But I'm afraid that the new sections lead to the opposite result.--Yannismarou13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Legacy, a question
Hello, I think I have an important question. The Legacy section, small as it is, is West-centric. What is the legacy of Byzantium in relation to the East? And I'm not only talking about the Christian East (Russia etc) but also the Muslim East. What gives? --Michalis Famelis(talk)08:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Political correctness is what gives. No one wants to anger the Middle East by suggesting that their Islamic culture was influenced by Chrisian Roman culture. The vast majority of "Islamic Science" is a revival of Greek and Roman Science. This can be seen by the fact that by the end of the Renaissance (when the west had re-discovered Greek and Roman science) Europe was more technologically advanced, resulting in regular Ottoman defeats by the Habsburgs.
The Ottoman Empire was heavily influenced by Byzantium and "admits" this by claiming to be its successor, hence the Sultan took the title Kaseri Rüm (Ceaser of the Romans).
To conclude, I think that the article could do with a serious boost in the above areas. However, it is easier to see Byzantine legacy in the Ottomans - many mosques in Turkey were converted from Byzantine Churches. Other Mosques are built true to Byzantine style. Many fortifications and roads built by the Byzantines were used by the Ottomans (e.g. Ankara in 1402 was an Ottoman city with Byzantine walls). Tourskin21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Certain aspects of the Sufism (the mystical branches of Islam) of the Ottoman Empire has been connected to late Byzantine thological/mystical movements (especially Hesychism). The Janissaries also venerated St George.
Mehemet the Conqueror claimed descent from the Byzantine Comnenus dynasty, to quote Gibbon: "John [son of Isaac son of Alexius I], the elder of his sons, renounced forever his religion. Provoked by a real or imaginary insult of his uncle, he escaped from the Roman to the Turkish camp: his apostasy was rewarded with the sultan's daughter, the title of Chelebi, or noble, and the inheritance of a princely estate; and in the fifteenth century, Mahomet the Second boasted of his Imperial descent from the Comnenian family."
Yes. But as I have already pointed out, these are Ottoman acquisitions of Byzantine culture. There is very little recorded acknowledgment to Arab acquisition of Byzantine culture.Tourskin23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was generally acknowledged that the Arabs were not notably culturally sophisticated until they had absorbed elements of Greco-Roman and Persian civilisation. They had literacy, but then so did the Nubians, Axumites and even the Goths. The Great Mosque of Damascus is a Byzantine building, and the greatest Islamic poetry was written in the Persian language. Arab science was based squarely on the Classical Greek texts with additions from Indian thought.
The impression that I am under as well. My point is that this area is neglected by Western historians. I'm not so sure though what Arab historians' position is on this matter generally speaking. Tourskin16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A while back, when the legacy section was quite distinct in form, I tried to balance the European stuff with the "Eastern"; this has, understandably, largely disappeared in the wake of the recent revisions. But I can't see any problem with reintroducing some of these points in the new structure. I seriously doubt that anyone, no matter how "politically correct," would take issue with the influence of Byz. on Islamic culture. And the subject is hardly neglected by western historians -- see e.g. D. Gutas, Greek thought, Arabic culture: the Graeco-Arabic translation movement in Baghdad and early 'Abbāsid society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries) (London, 1998); pretty much everything Maria Mavroudi has written lately; Irfan Shahid's books on "Byzantium and the Arabs"; Nadia Maria el-Cheikh, Byzantium viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge, 2004), etc., etc; also the work of all the historians of medieval Arab science (e.g. Paul Kunitzsch). The subject is complex and not simply a matter of absorption of Greek culture; in fact the general line is that Arab philosophers and scientists (Al-Farabi, ibn al-Haytham, etc.) were improving on the ancients while the Byzantines were content just to copy them; of course this results in part from a poor understanding of Byzantine philosophy & science, but also contains a kernel of truth. But in any case the basic matters of historical fact, e.g. a massive translation movement in Baghdad under the Abbasids fueled by manuscripts imported from Byzantium, are far from controversial and deserve mention. --Javits200010:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. if there's one thing that is not politically correct, and my apologies for thinking that's a legitimate concern, it's statements like this: Byzantium "shielded Western Europe from Persians, Arabs, Seljuk Turks, and for a time, the Ottomans." This whole idea of Byzantium as a battered bulwark of Christendom is not just old-fashioned, it's inaccurate; in medieval Realpolitik the Byzantines were as happy to make alliances with, say, the Seljuks against the "Europeans" as the "Europeans" were to make alliances with, say, the Ottomans against the Byzantines. --Javits200010:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that there are historical results from actions that are independant of the aims of those responsible. Charles Martel may have been more interested in subjecting Aquitain to his overlordship than he was in defeating the Arabs at Tours, but his victory marked the furthest extent of Arab power in Western Europe all the same. If Constantinople had fallen to either of the two seiges by the Arab Caliphates then Western Civilization would have been very different or not have arisen at all. The fact of the Byzantine Empire's existence did shield Western Europe from "Oriental" powers for a very long time. Were the leaders of the Byzantine Empire interested in this function of their empire? Undoubtedly they were not, but this does not alter the fact that this is a historical result of the Byzantine Empire's existence. Urselius15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Urselius there. It allowed Christianity to thrive in Europe without being restricted by the Jizya tax imposed by Muslims. This is the truth. Tourskin20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but perhaps it could be worded better. There is little (nothing?) to indicate that any Islamic empire between the Umayyads & the Ottomans actually had any interest in conquering much of Europe; the Ottomans are in this case a real exception, for which there are specific religious / ideological explanations. So the notion that some constant Muslim threat loomed over Europe throughout the Middle Ages can't be sustained; and Byzantium did awfully little (nothing?) to shield (S.E.) Europe from the Ottomans. But this is perhaps a distraction from the original question raised by Michalis. --Javits200018:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason why the Islamic Empires did not have an interest in conquering Europe was because they needed to conquer the Middle East first. Byzantium, Georgia, Armenia, Crusader states - all these "infidels" were in the way. They weren't holding a shield and doing it for your Europe as already pointed out - no, they were just trying to maintain their independence. When they were all more or less finished in the 14th century, that is when you get the Islamic Empire of the Ottomans looking to Europe, because Byzantium is finished (in terms of power). The Mamemlukes were not in a geographically suitable position to implement much conquests. So you see, their interests varied with the situation.
It is natural to assume that the Muslims wanted to attack Europe because their religion is a proselytizing one - so they will want to enter Europe, whilst the concept of a Holy War through a "struggle" (jihad) allows them to do so with force. Therefore I do not see how this idea cannot be accepted, let alone sustained. Tourskin17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Isnt this discussion verging on the islamophobic slightly? Im thinking some of the comments that are written above have an alterior motive than simply improving the historical relevance of this article. To be fair I dont think it was ever any Arab state's ambition to impose world domination or domination over Europe. Of course if your country ca conquer as many places as possible and have pmore power that is a good thing (at least from the perspective of the time), but to suppose this was purely an arab idea is very wrong. It would be true to say that both the arabs and the Ottomans probably had some ultimate goal of spreading islam to otherplaces, and many at the time would say 'what better way than conquest?'. However, this is exactly the same thing that the Christians ultimately wanted, to spread Christianty, and 'what better way than through conquest?'. To suppose it was the goal at the time of the arab nations to impose world domination sounds like some slightly stupid sentiment you might get out of some trashy right wing newspaper, but isnt really relevant to a History article. As for a word of advice, I wouldnt look at this period as though the Christians were the 'right' one and the arabs the 'wrong' ones, I wouldnt look at it the other way round either, although it may have slightly more credability, because it is not historically ture or relevant.
Everyone was after their own gains during this period, and religion wasnt often used as a tool to further ones gains, the Byzantines would play the crusader states off against the arabs/Turks, the Egyptians and Turks would do the same to Western Europeans and the Byzantines, The Crusader states wpould...etc etc. My point being if your looking at this from an ideallogical standpoint, The Byzantines were severly weakened by treachery done to them by western Europeans, and visa versa, there was neevr a 'united front of Chritendom', in fact the main reason for Byzatines fall was probably because Christians liked killing Christians so much (and before Im accused of being biased, I am in fact a Christian). Had Christians behaved morally they would have had a better chance of defending themselves against threats from the middle east (which needless to say were only there because they invaded it), and had the arabs and Turks behaved morally they would have had an even better chance of recalming their lands.172.214.15.23914:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit: reading through this again I am slightly sickened by the comments above my own, You do realise that it was the Christians who invaded arab territory? That we were proselytizing? That in fact when Jersusalem was conquered by the Christians all the Jews who had lived relatively peacefully under islamic rule were murdered? Please dont turn this into an anti-islamic discussion.172.214.15.23914:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I realise this wasnt neccessarily awnsering the point you posed, personally I believe that the Turks and arbas borrowed heavily their architechtual design from Byzantium, because it is true. However, this is not so much the case with their science. Arab science and Greko-Roman science is fundamentally different, at least partially because arab cultures had a fundamentally different form of mathematics. The arbas used a different numericall alphabet from the Grekks or Romans, which is where we get 0 from, which may nto sound like a 'big deal' but without the numeral 0 science would be very backwards. Also the Turks (although its hardly a nice thing) were the first culture observed to use effective muskets and cannons in the world, which shows that their weapons were originally more advanced, and shows their technollogical ifluence comes not so much from the west but the east, with Turkish technollogy being hevaily influenced by trading links with the far east. Other ideas from which the west bororowed heavily from, and were not present in Greko-Roman 'science', were effecitve cures for disease, intelligent understanding of how the body works (and not all Aristotilian), many chemical discoveries (the word for Acid comes from arabic), and more importantly than any of these, something which the west was extremelly backwards on and Greko-Roman science had hardly touched on at all, astronomy.
Actually I cant think of many examples of Arab/Turkish science related to Greko-Roman science, if you could quote me one then I would change my mind.172.214.15.23915:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all allow me to clarify:
Nothing I said above was Islamophobic. I am from the Middle East and know very well the ways of Islam in the Middle East.
Don't even get me started with this Crusader massacre nonesense. Yes, teh Crusaders did kill alot of people in Jerusalem. But if you hadn't noticed, it was he Muslism who took the Middle East from the Christians in the 7th century AD. Hmmm... and it was the Muslim Turks who stopped Christians from entering into jerusalem and forcing them out of the Middle East - the call for the Crusade.
Zero was not discovered by the Arabs out of thin air. It was a process takingmany years formulating by different races, such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Macedonians and finally India in the 6th century. When India was conquered by Islam, the zero spread across the world due to Arab merchants. Take a look at Hindu-Arabic numeral system. You see that this so called Arabic numeral system was "invented" with the aid of Indian knowledge.
Astronomy, like much of other "Arab science" such as medicine was also a product of thousands of years of work by other civilizations such as Babylonians, Chinese and Assyrians (who were the first to use medicine - garlic boiled in water).
Christians never invaded any Arab territory: Palestine was Christian before, so was Spain and much of North Africa. The only true Islamic land is Saudi Arabia, never invaded by Christians.
Of course the Arabs wanted to take Europe. Thats why they had to be beaten back by force when they invaded France in the 8th century and Byzantium. Haven't you read the Qu'ran, in which the Islamic Prophet talks about conquering Rome?
I am a Middle Eastern Christian. You can't tell me the above is Political Incorrectness or Islamophobia because I have and still am suffering islamic persecution in Iraq where my family has already suffered two kidnappings.
Finally, this is not a place for such talks. I have been forced to defend myself against these ridiculous accusations. This is for Byzantium. Tourskin23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for having triggered, quite innocently I hope, the above digression. I still think Michalis's original point needs to be addressed. --Javits200012:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
My apoligies for responding - reading the above comments, I think we should just include the stuff that had "disappeared". Sounds reasonable to me to just put it back in. Tourskin02:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I would just like to apologise for anything I said that sounded insulting, it was not my intention, I did not mean to 'accuse' you of anything, just to make sure that this article, and especially the references to islam and Christianity are not POV pushing, something which you have not denied, although I did not accuse you of islamophobia in particular,, simply that this artioicle (to me at least) felt like it was being written in a modern POV against war invlovling religion in the past. Im quite willing to accept that [there is persecution and problems with islamic countries in the world today (sorry for such a glib understatement considering what you have just said, but I do not want to be accused of hypocrisy). I have allso spent time in the middle east, I would not be looking at this article if I had not, although I can hardly say I know nearly as much about it as someone who lived there. Lastly, to the point, my only issue is that this article is about an Empire which is now dead and buried, for whatever reason, and modern issues/problems, and POV (however justified, and for whatever reason) does njot enter spomething I find historically very intresting. Also to Javits2000, I just want to say It is not your 'fault' for prevokign what I wrote, I wrote waht I wrote because it was my opinion, and it was probably put far too untactufually and in an insulting way, which was not my intention as I said, but still remains my opinion. I wirote this here because I thought this would be the best place to write it, as it was a question of 'legacy' which i took to mean trying to relate this past to the present. Please do not feel gulty if you think that what I wrote was unfair, I wrote it because I thought it at the time, and was insensitive (which I apologise for), but not because I felt compelled to by what you wrote. 172.188.207.7520:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when I wrote this apology above this comment I hadnt reread what I wrote, but now I have I can see, now with the complaint underneath it, that I was far too sensitive and (patronising?), in the responses I gave. Also that I was obviously reading into the comments above far far too much, I would advise delting what I wrote or keeping it in a different section, as It is, now I see, insulting, arrogant, and far to relataliotory for somethign which didnt deserve it. All I can say is that I am sorry for any insult I caused Tourksin, my only excuse being probably a bad mood caused by some news article or other, and I dont know why I wrote such an unesseccessary reply. The only point which I would like to keep is that this articel shoudlnt be related to modern history at all, as the article will eitehr become POV, or some person in a bad mood like myself will flip out over nothing.172.188.207.7520:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to make clear, I was not launching a personal attack on you Tourskin, more on the fact that the Byzantine Empire seems like it could easily be put into a modern POV context.172.188.207.7520:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My apologies if I did say something anti-Islamic. However, we don't need to apologies to express our opinions regarding the article. You are more than welcome to complain if you think this article has a particular Point of View. Tourskin21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Religion
From c. 1380's to 1453 the religion of the Empire was Byzantine Catholic. Should we state this? I mean I know it was just for show to impress the Papacy but I think its relevant.Tourskin01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If there was an imperial policy in this direction(for SOME Paleolgian emperors)that does not mean that the empire was not Orthodox . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.76.249 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Next time you whant to change back to what you said at least justfy(if you can)it by something!(were "something" is something more than the imperial policy that was not the nations point of view ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.78.41 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So far as I can tell the removed text (Infobox, under religion) was well and accurately sourced, and the reasons for its removal subjective and unsourced (an assertion about the Volksglaube, a profoundly difficult thing to prove). Reverting. --Javits200012:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well my dear detractor...faith is a matter of each person ,not of the state, and if it can be quantified at a state level then it can be done by the number of adherents of that faith. Now ,in our case the VAST majority of the people was Orthodox not Byzantine-Chatolic ,and that can not be changed by any reference(even if i am eager to here your response,) . For instance , after the Council of Florance , the only bishop that opposed the union was called "The New Saint John" by the population of Constantinople and the ones that signed were considered traitors and later modified their statements , a little fact that would probably not take place if the majority was pro-Chatolic. Now ,if you have another point of view that does not make mine untrue, it`s just that demographics are on my side . If we wore to talk about the lidership of the then decaying empire then you would have been corect , but ....i`m chaging it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.74.194 (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You may not like it but that doesn't matter because its a fact and well-sourced that the Byzantine government submitted to Rome. It doesn't matter what the population believes, its the official religion of the state here. Tourskin17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What i like and what i dislike is not of importance. But from my point of view in the east it was and still is more important what the populations belives in than what the emperor or government decrees.Now , we must not forget that the Eastern Roman society was very different from what was once in Sweden or Danmark were the church was nation (bye the way...nationality was not a clear concept back then,in fact i don`t even remeber it taking existence until the 18 century...).So , as I stated the governement did (in majority ) "submit" itself to Rome , but not the population; one must take into account what happend after Lyon II or Ferrara! As a compromise i will mention both the population and the government as separate entities.PS: sorry for my writing mystakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.74.96 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright - as a final compromise, how bout we say de facto Eastern Orthodox from 1054 - 1453 and de jure Byzantine Catholic from 1360's - 1453?Tourskin20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the religion of a premodern state can only be clearly determined through its official manifestation; a) because we have hardly any information about what the Volk believed, anecdotes about the "new St. John" notwithstanding, and b) because where we do have information we find so much divergence from official "orthodoxy" of whatever sort (I mean persistence of magic, local saints' cults, "heterodox" theological conceptions, etc.) that it would be impossible to identify any single religious current as the dominant one. In short, faith may be a matter of "each person," but they believed the damndest things. And in any case the entry in the Infobox does not read "faith" but "religion" -- which was clearly a matter of state in Byzantium.
In terms of the specific matter at hand, all we can determine is what certain "elites" believed the right course to be. They were of course divided; the deciding factor, then, in determining the religion of the state, is of course what the state decided, and there the facts are quite clear. I don't see any need for an additional reference (neither, incidentally, do I see the need for a compromise), but for a recent summary see A. Berger, "Unionisten und Antiunionisten in der Ostkirche," in Th. Nikolaou, ed., Das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche (Münster, 2004), 97-114. --Javits200022:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again ...let`s take a quick look at Lyon II : in the 13 century the Emperor Michael VII Paleologos sent the pathriach along with a few bishops to unite with the Roman-Chatolic Church. Now , there, the patriach said the creed with the filioque clause in it and at arrival in Constantinople the patriarch was almost linched buy the population . This one is a very good exemple to prove you wrong Javits. Now , i know that in Empires such as the Persian one , the Western Roman one , Claiphates etc. the religon was more of a matter of state ; but if we look at the Eastern Roman one we can see nothing but 200 years of Palologan efort to unite with the Romano-Catholic Church(maybe with a very view exceptions). So , what you said that "religon was a matter of state" is true, and expecialy true for the Byzantine Empire ,but that did not mean that the Emperor or any elite had more power than the people in religious problems... even the fact that there were widespread ridicoulouse things like the legend about the angel that will come down and save Constantinople that we find at Gibbon that does not change the fact that the people was Orthodox , from it`s heart and in practice,in fact Orthodoxy was probalby the most remarking aspect of the Empire in its entire history! Also : i do not remeber any public decree that would make the empire Chatolic(nor do i think that if it were would it mean that it was). In conclusion : a) the emperor and elite were never capable to determine the religion or faith of the empire ( whatever the diffrence is i don`t really know ) and b) the empire had a majority Orthodox population! (and i would say Orthodox religion , but guess what, a state is a political entity so it can not belive in anything because it is not alive ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.78.151 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Forget the hell about the people - its the government that submitted to Rome. You are missing the point that the government's official religion was Catholicism. Yes the people were Orthodox through and through although if you read the article it says that the population were bitterly divided over political or religious preservation. All the unions were disputed - that doesn't mean it was not the official government endorsed religion you know. Tourskin18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Now i do not think that i am missing it; however i DO think that you should read all of what i wrote befor afirming something . And that being said I am also curiouse to see just were did i wrote that Chatolicism was not the official government endoresed religon?! That`s right! Nowere! In fact i even wrote that there was a 200 year effort (with small interuptions) to unite with the Chatolic Church from the Paleogoian Dynasty. Did I not said that ? As for the other part of your response: how? how can i forget the people. We come to this question: the religion of a state is that witch is endored by the gobernment or that of the people. And to demonstrate witch i am going to give some exemples: 1) Roman Empire in the time of Julian the Apostate: the religon promoted was paganism but the relgion was Christian (or were Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian living in a pegan-majority empire?!) 2) Sweden: the state religon is Lutheranism the people is agnostic/atheistic 3) Communist Romania( yes , i am a romanian, but i don`t like communism blah): atheistic regime and orthodox people. Now answer ,if you can : is Sweeden a state were you can say that christianity is the religion, or was Romania atheistic?!.....even the communist leaders were buried with a Church-Service(i.e.: Gheorghe-Gheorghiu Dej) . Furthermore i even wrote that the government was in majority pro-Chatolic, so why are you complaining. The main question is what determines a states religion: and i think that the answer is that the state religion is the religion that is embraced by the majority of that country , simply because religion means faith more than politics!
Now, about the unions : from what i remember there were only two and both failed (i wrote about Lyon and if you what something about Ferrara you may look at the article in wikipedia or better: find another source) but the population was divided only after Ferrara,but even then the majority was Orthodox(and i do mean vast majority). Allways awaiting your answer, yours Adrian! (PS : please read all that i wrote before doing that and sorry again for my mistakes...i know an english that is a bit rotten )
The official government religion was Catholic. The end? No both unions did not fail, only in material gain did they fail for the Byzantines and in appeasing the pesants but other than that the Byzantine Church submitted to Rome. I did read ur argument, its quite long, please keep it short and concise and not go of at tangents about communism.Tourskin22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok look I am wiling to accept the compromise unless someone else can back me up here because all we can do is agree to disagree. I can see your point...but not agree to itTourskin22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
From what i remember Lyon II can not count because there were very view representatives of the Orthodox Church and Ferrara because :a) Mark of Ephesus never signed and b) even the bishops that did signed required another synod to be held , but this time in the Empire. I`m sorry, i`m not trying to start a war, it`s just that i do not whant to make mystakes , so if you have something about Lyon or Ferrara(other than wikipedia) PLEASE write some references(i am not kidding, nor am i confronting you this time , history is a hobby of mine and i really relly whant that info).Yours,Adrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.76.198 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The compromise we agreed earlier is good enough for me unless you or someone else challenge it. To be honest I have neither the time nor the will to pursue this argument any further - my only argument is that the state religion is what the Head of State i.e. the Emperor decrees it to be and the Emperors decreed it to be Catholicism. Like I said, I am willing to accept the current compromise, it seems u do so too. Tourskin04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly just a problem of conflicting definitions; I believe, as Tourskin does, that the religion of a state is determined by its official policy, whereas the anonymous editor believes it is determined by the faith adhered to by a majority of the people. There is an additional problem with applying the latter definition in pre-modern societies; whereas we have polling data on Sweden, and sufficient historical data on religion in modern Communist states, no similarly reliable information exists for "popular" belief in the empires either of Julian or of the Palaeologans. Sources mentioning popular dissent, for example, are themselves presumably written by elites with their own position on the matter -- thus, if Sozomen tells us that the people hated Julian, he might have had a reason for doing so. (This is also, for example, the problem with attempting to determine the extent of popular acceptance of iconoclasm.) Now, if we knew that large numbers of Byzantines refused communion with clerics who followed the Unionist line, it would be a different matter; all the more so were there evidence for sees with multiple bishops, etc. I've never heard of anything like that -- that is, actual institutional evidence for widespread rejection of Palaeologan religious policy -- but can't claim to have investigated the issue in depth. But here's the basic point if we are to accept the compromise: the statement regarding state religion is backed up by a reliable, modern source; the statement regarding popular religion is, thus far, not. --Javits200013:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, i see your point. Yes, we do not have(at least from what i know) a census from the Paleologian period(when you have a big problem like having your empire conquered you do not have the money or time to do it), nor do i have the required knowledge of a modern or contemporan autor to back up the 'speculation' that the majority was Orthodox . But can you say that it wasn`t ?! I mean,how could have the Orthodox faith survived in does lands(after the conquest) if they were Chatolics ?! Now, i know that it is not much , but i do remember a small mention at Gibbon(in the romanian ; 'editied' edition from the comunist era, witch is even more anti-religion than Gibbon himself ) ,not that i find Gibbon a good source, since he was biased in the sence that he was anti-orthodox(i am not making this up, just look at his stance on iconoclasm: he writes that it was a superstion to pray at icons, so don`t tell me that i am writing my own oppinions up here) , but still :
(After some maidens read the note on Ghenadios`s door room)(in my own translation):" At the advice of Ghenadios,the faithful maidens,clean as angels and proud as demons,regected the act of union of the two churches and disavowed any communion with the present and future associates of the latins,and there exemple was treasured and imitated by the majority of the clegy and of the people!"
Yes, you are still missing the point put forward by Javits and I. The Official Religion of the State is determined by the Head of State. And the Head of state deteremined it to be Catholicism. Its not the people that count. We know that the people, many peopel hated the Latins but that does not mean it was not the official religion. Orthodox Christianity was the Unofficial Popular religion only Tourskin18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As Javits said: that`s his and yours oppinion , not mine , and not of other people i asked. However my question was about my source , is THAT good now (that fragment from Edward Gibbon)? I am also obliged to add that in the table of the article it is writen "Religion" not "Official Religion of the State" (or more correct for your point of view: "Religion promoted by the emperor and the majority of the governing body" since i do not recall an edict or an act of the emperor nameing the religion of the empire,nor do i think that that would have an effect as religion is a matter of personal option ,not of the policy of an emperor), no need to get so upset! Also, it is (now) a sourced fact(Gibbon) that there were not "many" people , but the "majority" and i am not sure that they hated the latins, rejected yes, but hatered is subjective, and i try to be as objective as i can! (and i expect the same from you) Adrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.76.237 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Youre reference to Gibbon is not fully thought out, I'm afraid. The full quote is "According to the advice of Gennadius, the religious virgins, as pure as angels, and as proud as daemons, rejected the act of union, and abjured all communion with the present and future associates of the Latins; and their example was applauded and imitated by the greatest part of the clergy and people."
The key phrase is bolded. This is a reference to the PRESENT and the FUTURE, i.e. 1452, one year before the fall of Constantinople. Therefore, since the Empire was from 330 to 1453, one year's worth of proof is not enough to make your point. We must accept the state religion as valid I think. Monsieurdl19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well your interval of years is a bit to big,don`t you think. So let me point out to you that the disscousion was focused on the late-Paleologian period since before them there was no question of Chatolic being a major faction in the Eastern Roman Empire. Now, what we do know also is the fact that this question was only seriously disscused in the last years of the empire(as Lyon II was a clear failure) ,but let me cite one more thing for you(this time from wikipedia), shall I ?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Metrophanes_II_of_Constantinople ... "deposed by popular uprising " , hm...popular uprising, it is hard to think that in a Chatolic country,were the emperor is Chatolic, the majority of the population is and were the official religon (by who knows what decree?!) is Chatolic the pro-Chatolic Patriarch would be deposed. NOTE: i did not wrote anything sofar in the article about Metrophanes(nor do i think that i would do so in the near future) and neither did i told anyone to do so (i do not remember even knowing anything about him until today), so please don`t tell me that i edited it or that i make-ed up anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.76.237 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In any case Gibbon is hardly a reliable source on Byzantine history, and a citation simply to "Gibbon 1789" doesn't clear anything up. I'ld be curious to know what more recent authorities on late Byzantine history (e.g. Nicols) have to say on the subject --Javits200001:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
He isn`t! In fact he is even quite anti-greek in general so if let`s say x is against y but x says something that could be potentialy good about y ( in this case keeping one`s faith in spite of the help the y would have recived in the other case) , well then we can belive him. Now one more thing , when i write Gibbon at the search part there appears a mokey but if you go to the dezambig page you find EDWARD Gibbon. Now how am i supposed to know who this Nicols is? Or that guy Reinert(if you search for him it turns out to be an economist !) ?! So please ,from now on, if it is not knowed by the general audience,or cannot be searched using wiki then PUT HIS ENTIRE NAME! One more thing , your hole remarc is utterly teasing! You asked for a source, you got it, but as i said last time before the post with Gibbon (Edward that is), it was a clear thing from the start that the vast (and by vast i mean VAST ) majority was Orthodox,in plus i gave you that other link to that patriarch that was "deposed by popular uprising"! Now ,before you say something about the source(even if Gibbon very biased!),then please bring your on,and if you can do that than at least have the power to write what you think ,not what you think is wrong at what i say! What? Was the Byzantine population Chatolic in it`s last phase, is that what you ar saying?! Adrian.PS: please don`t start again this argument and do not post thing just to contradict for the fun of it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.74.253 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Gibbon is no more a reliable modern source on Byzantine history than is his contemporary, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, on classical art; for the simple reason that both were writing over 200 years ago, and hence a significant amount of scholarly effort has been expended broadening our knowledge of both fields in the interim.
You seem not to have taken seriously my suggestion, above, that anecdotal evidence drawn from literary sources by elite authors is hardly an infallible gauge of the opinions of the Volk. The most obvious case study in this regard is iconoclasm, which seems in its first phase (and in contradiction to the accounts of 9th- and 10th-century historians) to have interested very few if any "commoners." Note that in the passage you have cited from Gibbon, he does not make the leap you make in deducing that the entire populace was in a meaningful sense tenaciously "Orthodox" in opposition to the religious policy of their temporal and spiritual leaders.
Donald Nicol (pardon the typo) is the author of the current standard English-language history of the late period: The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453 (Cambridge, 1993). I don't know what he says on the subject, as I don't have a copy at hand; a quick search of a few keywords in Amazon suggests that he wisely keeps silent on the subject of the Volksglaube, but it would be necessary to consult a hard-copy to know for sure. Reinert is cited in the bibliography of the present article.
I have never suggested that the Byzantine Volk were "Catholic" in any meaningful sense; only that the state is the only entity about which we can extract reliable information. My strong suspicion is that most of the "commoners" could have cared less, and continued to attend church, take communion when it was offered, and honor their local clergy as spiritual authorities regardless of their technical relationship to Rome.
While I appreciate your service to the article in raising an interesting issue, I might suggest that you a) sign your posts according to the standard fashion (with four tildes at the end); and b) abstain from use of all caps, which is sometimes perceived as the equivalent of "shouting." --Javits200001:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Why , when i use caps it`s just because i am enoyed by something , sorry, i am not yet very accustomed with wikipedia policies and customs,as for what you wrote regarless of my poor format of posting:
a) From the beginig of my post i said that he isn`t, however not in your sense,but still! He wrote largely against greeks in this "History of..." so an argument pro-greek by writing that they kept their religion(most of them) is at least plausible
b) i never rememer saying "entire" population, i said majority ,from >= 50% + 1 , and that can very from 51% to 73% or 64% or 89% etc....
c) as for the "volk"`s(i would have prefered people since someone else who does not understand some german terms might not know what you meant) stance on religion i contradict because of: 1) the episode with that partiarch 2) there was a general anti-latin/anti-catholic sentiment in the empire for the last 200 years 3) what happend after Ferarra ( or shall i put this as a question; what did happen after Ferrara,did the Synaxis had power to revert the decisions of the Emperor without the people???) and other reassons that i do not have to time to research write now.I await eagerly more sources in either way(mine or yours).(i also hope this 4 tildes thing works) 86.120.79.8716:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Adrian
a) the question isn't whether gibbon was "anti-" or "pro-greek"; the question is whether he reflects modern research; which he obviously cannot do, having written over 200 years ago.
b) regardless, no such figure, whether 49 or 51 or whatever percent, can be extracted from the available sources.
c) you're still arguing from anecdotes and generalizations ("anti-catholic sentiment"). in general, since we as wikipedia editors agree not to engage in original research, what would be decisive would be the judgment of modern byzantinists. --Javits200013:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And i still await your "modern byzantinist"`s remarks , in fact i even said that i can`t wait for you to write them down so that i may no longer be in the dark mist of my would-be sujectivism. Now, the joke aside, how about you bring more sources to the table and ,at least once, revel to me what happend after Ferrara and what about Metrophanes II?! 86.120.77.4620:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
Before changing it back you are obliged to give arguments,answer my questions and bring at least one good source that supports what you say. And you are not obliged by me, but by common sence given the current stage of this disccusion.AdrianCo16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No source has been offered to support the statement that the majority of the population was "orthodox." Gibbon is not an acceptable source for the reasons outlined above; but even if he were, no citation has been offered in which he makes any such claim. The citation (which is, incidentally, useless without a page number), is therefore doubly insufficient. I am not obliged to provide a source that supports my contention (i.e. that the faith of the population is an ignorabimus), because I have no desire to add any text to the article on this matter. It is not necessary to cite an absence. --Javits200019:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
But he does! Look again at http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap68.htm#Obstinacy . Now read ,read, read some more and OH, in such a small sub-chapter we found that "According to the advice of Gennadius, the religious virgins, as pure as angels, and as proud as daemons, rejected the act of union, and abjured all communion with the present and future associates of the Latins; and their example was applauded and imitated by the greatest part of the clergy and people". Now i do not wish to resume this argument just because you didn`t read with the required attention!And you still didn`t explained what i asked you to do (about that patriarch and about that what happend after Ferrara). But still , here`s a new one : was there any decree(chrystobull) establishing the Chatolic faith as the "official religion of the empire" after Ferrara(witch does not count since it failed) so that you can back up the claims that you make?!PS: i am growing tierd of going back to thing that were disscused allready(the current compromise seems decent to me) just because someone hasen`t read what he should had or because he has an un-backed-up-by-source opinion(i woulden`t complain as much if you din`t when i din`t had my source) , a purly biased point of view and a tactic of reverting the changes just because it is what he think he has.I also don`t have a census ,but i do have Gibbon, Metrophanes II and Ferrara what do you do have besides a lack of source , the lack of an edict and your personal oppinion!? AdrianCo20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
1) Gibbon remains an out-dated source.
2) The passage cited applies, as noted above by Monsieurdl, to approximately two years in the history of the empire. It therefore applies to a little over 2% of the time span in question.
3) The claim regarding state religion is indeed supported by a modern source. Therefore, as stated frequently above, the onus lies upon you to provide a modern source for your own claims.
As for your increasingly aggressive tactics of argumentation, e.g. accusing others of not having read your source, or of possessing some undefined bias, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. I do not wish to engage in a revert war; I would prefer that other editors weigh in and/or restate their judgment on this matter. --Javits200014:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
1) Old,out-dated he may be,that does not meen that he may not be a good source in some questions.
2) The passage applies to the exact span of years that were in question as in the last 100 years of the Empire is was only in the period between Ferrara and the Fall of Constantinople that the union was put seriously into question as it was regarded as a last resort.
3) Again about that Reinert,what was his other name, you never told me his other name,even Caesar had the name Caius Iulius Cesar , what about Reinert? And what is the book that he wrote and what sources did he had in the first place?
4) Not aggresive,just iretated,plus i never insulted you,did i begin calling name or something;no! The accusation about you not reading that sub-chapter came after (quote from yourself) "but even if he were, no citation has been offered in which he makes any such claim", so i naturaly assumed that you either had not read the passage ,either had bad intentions; and presuming the lesser evil between the two i assumed the first option.
5) I still insist on Ferrara , Metrophanes II and a modern/non-modern source that claims that the majority of the population was not Orthodox.And now that you put it that way,that the population of Constantinople belived whatever the elite said as you belive this as true, i do not. You see,far from being a Democracy(very far), the population of Constantinople usualy had some say(usualy even a grater say then the emperor) in matters such as religion (as in the monophysit and nestorian controvesies),and i also belive that it was in majority Orthodox!But you should not belive me,not as you request that i belive what you belive,you see i seriously think that in matters of histoy cirucmstantial evidence and in some messure sources matter very much in the cases of a lack of archeological evidence ,censuses,etc...
6) Metrophanes II ,Ferrara , a chrystobull procalimig the Chatolic faith as the "established religion" or (new) a justification of the convertion (back) to Orthodoxy from Chatolicism of John VII Paleologus anyone,Javis ? I would also like to thank you for the civility link, i also do not agree on a revert war,but,look even Tourskin said that the population was Orthodox(even if he did say that this didn`t count). Now i still await any evidence(circumstantial or not) that the population was other then Orthodox or that it followed the emperor or the govenment blindly! AdrianCo
I don't see what the argument is here. Adrian you can't argue against this point - Religion of the State is dictated by the Head of State. End of story. The people are merely subjects. You forget that during the time of Manuel Komnenus the Latin population was 80,000 out of 200,000. Tourskin19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No one change the religion until a concensus is reached. So please leave out the bulky note about what the population believed for now. Tourskin20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Come to think about it when was it 'dictated' with succes? Lyon , Ferrara? They still are failiures,and because emperors in the last period were oscilating between the Orthodox and the Chatolic faith there was no cleasrly endorsed religion. Now ,the current discusion was about the last years since in other years there wasn`t even the question of the population being Chatolic.Now about your figures: how do you know that the population was 80000 out of 200000 Latin under Manuel, and another question! Even if the genovese and venecian sumed up to 80000 then that was only in Constantinople;hello! During his regin the ERE had most of the Balcans ,Asia Minor ,Cyprus,the Egean Islands,Crete even parts of Italy! So! 80.000 out of 200.000,if true!(a big if i might add) was probably a small fraction out of potential millions that the empire had in the other provinces! Our question is of the empire,not of the Capital.
But now the question was not about what religion the government endorsed,what Javis and I were arguing about was if the population was in majority Orthodox or not! But since the problem did arise in to fronts(either Javis-problames regarding what the majority of the population was or yourself-what the state endoresd religion was): an edict? Can you prove that Constantin XI endorsed Chatolicism till the end?! From what i know he may have recived the Papal Legate and recived communion from him(this is form Gibbon so i do not know it for sure),but i do know that a year befre he endoresd the Orthodox religion by supporting the Synaxys! I also do know that even John VII , the emperor that whent to Ferrara retracted on his death-bed his support for the Union and rebecamed Orthodox. What i do not know of is an Chrystobull making Chatolicism the formal religion.
Now i do whant to tell you what i really think about what happend then: i think it was in part an inverted event similar to the begining of Anglicianism with Henry VIII of England: there the king clearly stipulated(by the Act of Supremacy) that the head of the Church of England was the King of England, the vast majority of the governmant(with the notable exception of Thomos More) and of the clergy accepted,the majority of the population followed and a vast amount of time passed so that the decision could take full-effect. Now that is a state endoresed religion!
Let`s take a closer look on the ERE in it`s late periode: Emperors oscilated between Orthodox and Chatolic positions, the only edicts that were signed(to my knowledge ,so fell free to add some light into the question) were at Lyon(were the emperor was not present) witch failed,was not a synod from the Orthodox point of view(lack of qvorum) and ended up with the Emperor being excomunicated by the Pope! and at Ferrara ,witch also failed,were the Greek-Orthodox Bishops that signed insisted that a new synod should be held in the Eastern part and that the current one was not valid and after witch even the emperor renonced the union and the pathriarch that followed and that supported the union was put out of office by the population....etc etc At what part in here do we found a clearly endorsed religion?! I do not see it! Even if some emperors did support Chatolicism at some point we can not say that was a clear position. And we also can not say that Chatolicism was clarly endorsed! One more thing ,you wrote: " Religion of the State is dictated by the Head of State. End of story.The people are merely subjects. " and i would like to object! (well ration tells us that the people are individuals and that they could think for themselves but i do not what to let you get the oportunity of nailing me down on account of resuming what i said over and over).So ,if you look at the State Religion page here on wikipedia you will find:"A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." , were state= "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area." and on the same page you can find that state religion is different from state church :" State church vs state religion
There is also a difference between a "state church" and "state religion"."A state church is created by a monarch, as in the cases of the Anglican Church, created by Henry VIII or the Church of Sweden, created by Gustav Vasa. An example of "state religion" is Argentina's acceptance of Catholicism as its religion. In the case of the former, the state has absolute control over the church, but in the case of the latter, in this example, the Vatican has control over the church."(I would like to add that i did not modified the article on state religion nor did i asked anyone to do so,i just quoted from it!).If you go to the Byzantine Empire page you will see that Religion redirects to "State Religion", so the Emperor did not had the power to dictate the religion even by your own definitions(even thow this discusion should have not started in the first place,as i think that the religion of a state is dictated by what the majority of the population belives because if an emperor dictates something and that something does not take place that that thing is not endorsed because of the lack of power from the emperor in the matter in the first place ).
Since i did found this contradiction (between state church and state religion),and there is no formal edict other than thoes 2 failed ones i am changing it back,only this time to Eastern Orthodox Church in its entire existence. Before posting something else i do suggest that you find something else soon ,because in the last few post i seem to be the only person to come up with new information people! AdrianCo21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is becoming rather absurd. In addition to the Thomistic style of argument, you may want to heed WP:SOURCE -- "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources." And please do not remove well-sourced material. You have twice asked "who this Reinert is"; I have once replied that the information is there in the article bibliography, and will this time copy the information over for you: Reinert, Stephen W. (2002). "Fragmentation (1204-1453)", in Cyril Mango: The Oxford History of Byzantium. Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19814-098-3. The Oxford History is one of a few standard modern English-language handbooks on Byz. history. --Javits200022:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The absurd part is the argument rejecting a state religion for a followed religion still has not been backed up with any legitimate published source material that covers the period under contention. I'm sorry, but you have given us a lot of dissertations, but no scholarly evidence. The evidence of the existence of a state religion has all been proven by legitimate means, and therefore it should stand unless this contradictory evidence is presented. I know it does not mean much, but as an Orthodox Catholic I stand on the side of fairness regardless because the facts bear out the truth. Monsieurdl23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank Javis for sheding some light as who that guy was!It would be nice but not imperative if there we could have a small fragment from him so that i may read the context and his sources,but i will not press on the issue.And Gibbon is reliable in some cases!However it is imperative that you anwser to me on the questions that i raised,or shall i be inclined to belive that alien invaders mind-controled the population after Ferrara,that an edict clearly instaling tha Chatolic faith as the established religion was lost in time,that who knows what kind of insanity made John VII mad and that who knows what upducted by the same alien invaders and taken to Mars to be analised ...it`s rediculous! Bring some answers allready! One more small,really small thing: State religion is not the same thing as State Church, simplt diffent definitions,therefore i am deliting it on account of wrong definition(even if my other evidence might have had an impact on more rational people) regardless on what your own religion is,you once told me that your bias is undefined by me, let me make it clear! I am really beginning to think that you are biased to Chatolicim positions! All of your theoryes lay on the shoulders of that Reinert guy,witch may be a good source,and if you could quote him i would appreciate!But no answers on other issues!!! Why the silance????.AdrianCo07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Arbitrary section break
I think we don't need to continue a debate about the facts as such here. We all agree there were periods when the political and ecclesiastic leadership of Byzantium submitted to Rome, and we all agree this didn't much affect the actual religious practices and believes of the Byzantines. The question is: (a) can we say, without committing OR, that this act made Byzantium "a Catholic empire"? (b) are these episodes important enough within the great scheme of things to be in the infobox? Remember, when writing a good infobox (and see my general objection about boxes below), we have the double responsibility of only including material that is indubitably factual, and only material that is indubitably relevant.
Now, we obviously have sources explaining how the emperor entered union with Rome and all that, but do we have sources actually saying that "Byzantium was a Catholic state between 1380 and 1453"? The conclusion that it must have been, by virtue of its leadership having made that decision, strikes me as OR-ish. It's an interpretative choice, and it seems to have the effect of giving undue emphasis to something that isn't given this kind of emphasis by established treatments of the issue. Who are we to decide that this is the decisive criterion?
As for relevance, infoboxes are for giving a kind of "executive summary" of the topic in two minutes. Now, ask yourselves: If you were to explain to a person, in two minutes, the most essential things about what Byzantium was, would you mention its link to Eastern Orthodoxy? I bet yes. Would you mention the episodes of union with Rome? I doubt it.
Allthow i do not agree on your first statemant as there war only parts of the clegy and of the political leadership that submitted to Rome but i generaly agree with your point of view,i would not have protested if it was a mention of fact that there were some emperors and some parts of the clergy and of the population that submited to Rome(or to Iconoclasm,i think we all forgot about this small episode),but as you say infoboxes are for general inforamation. AdrianCo21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Let me just say that leaving the religion section as it is "Eastern Orthodox Church" is great. I withdraw from arguing the de jure Catholic religion which was not implemented for religious reasons. Tourskin04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Register lingering skepticism on this point -- to me the dalliance with Rome is one of the salient factors that marks off the late Empire from earlier periods, which taken together render it an almost entirely different object of study -- but happy to submit to consensus, if such it is. --Javits200015:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Issues to be addressed
The following articles still need to be created, but when I have the time I will start them. I am currently working on Byzantium under the Palaiologoi:
An article for Latin Byzantium, from 300's to 620's. I am not keen to split this into so many dynasties yet, despite the enormous information.
There's lots of things to discuss here. For example, the above system of dividing this article into smaller "Theme articles" is not going to work exactly along dynastic lines because some dynasties such as the Nikephorian is very short lived, for only 11 years. Therefore its best to incorporate some of these dynasties - therefore I have shown "minor dynasties" (IMO) underneath a larger dynasty so that these may be incorporated in to them.
Furthermoore, we need to include the Epirus, Trebizond and Nicaen portions into this article. If these articles have already been created, then they too should be included. At the moment theres a few sentencs for over 50 years of terrible history. No one knew that Nicaea would take Constantinople, certainly Epirus did not count on it losing out to the Nicaeans.
Finally I would like to re-address the hilarious issue (which has died down) that the article is out of proportion. As I have already said 1204 - 1261 is no more than a few sentences. However, the Justinian years have their own wikipedia, literally.
I agree that the dynastic structure can be a bit unwieldy; I also think it's a fairly convenient way of dividing up the history. And also agree that "minor dynasties" do not require their own article. When time permits -- which won't be for a month at least, I'm afraid -- I'd be happy to work on the Heraclian & Isaurian articles. There are articles on the Despotate of Epiros, Empire of Nicaea, and Empire of Trebizond -- pretty extensive ones, actually. --Javits200017:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
When you mean Byzantine studies, do you mean what the Byzantine studied or studies on the Byzantines?
If you meant what the Byzantines studied:
Bentley, Jerry H. (2006). Traditions & Encounters a Global Prespective on the Past. New York: McGraw-Hil. States that all Byzantines had a primary education which was great for them. The rich would have studied at Alexandria but after 643 AD the Empire slid into the Medieval Ages and learning, art and architecture became a secondary objective to military and political matters.
, some better than other rash people (ahem, Edward Gibbon, ahem).
Hello Tourskin. Thanks for your reply. All the articles listed by you are of great interest and help, but I meant the general article that would deal with the past and present of the Byzantine studies/Byzantinology as a multi-facetted discipline, something along the lines with Iranian Studies. Cheers, --KoberTalk07:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Specifically the political names and boundaries of areas such as China.
To list a few examples: in 400AD, China was not controlled solely by the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the Northern Wei Dynasty; the southern area was controlled by Eastern Jin, while the northern area was fragmented into 9 states, with Northern Wei only controlling a small portion. In 500AD, China was controlled by the Northern Wei Dynasty and the Southern Qi Dynasty, with Northern Wei having a larger portion; Sui Dynasty does not exist at the time.
While this is not too relevant since this article is about the Byzantine Empire, I don't think it's a good idea to give false information in the maps.
quantum cyborg06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you suggest? I am willing to have a shot at editting the maps if you could provide a smaller one on China as a reference. Tourskin06:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline and disintegration (of the article?)
Tourskin, why did you make the article again so long?! 147 kbs?! I don't like these long sub-sections in Decline and disintegration. We do not need so long sections. Respect WP:SS. If these sections need rewriting OK, but do not make the article that long. I'm afraid we'll soon be back in FAR soon.--Yannismarou11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
After all, it is my belief that any serious expansion like this one should be first discussed here and then implemented. For instance, the section about the Fourth Crusade tends to be bigger than the article itself! We do not need such long sub-section!! I strongly believe they harm the article! And I do not speak about prose issues, such as some stubby paragraps etc., which do not conform with FA criteria.--Yannismarou12:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Aahha... I seem to have finally caught ones' attention. Well to be honest, I had made a post about the Decline section in response to BigDaddy1204's proposal. No one replied for over three days so I added in what I had finished from my Byzantium under the Angeloi article. Ok I see u crossed out that point, By all means eliminate some information, but not all.
As we have already discussed the article is out of proportion. Remove what you think is not needed. I was just too impatient to wait. Sorry!! Tourskin18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please understand... that I support elminating parts of the Decline section. Give me a little time to show you a smaller and concise version.Tourskin18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok please take a look now. It was 36 kb of info but now down to half as much, 18kb. I don't think we need an FAR if we add content that is referenced. It may not hav good prose but I guess thats were you come in!!Tourskin04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok its cool now. It doesn't seem to bad and its only 25 years of history so I guess its good. Thank you for your assistance!Tourskin17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Eastern Roman Empire
The last I remember, a concensus was reached which allowed the Byzantine Empire article to be split up into "Themes" or different articles. But why has Eastern Roman Empire been reduced to a redirect to here? We need that in my honest opinion as a title for the time period between c330 AD to say 620 AD or perhaps earlier at 530 AD at the time of Justinian's reign. Tourskin07:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats not true. The word Roman becomes redundant after 620 AD. This article is too long and needs to be split up. So what name can be used for pre-Greek Byzantine? I say ERE sounds great. Anyone with any opinions on this matter?Tourskin23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a great name for an article covering the period from the reformations of Diocletian till at least the end of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. Not sure where we should place its "succession" to the "Byzantine Empire" though. Dimadick10:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It would also mean us here at Wikipedia making more or less arbitrary decisions on where exactly that "boundary" (if there is any) between "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" is to fall. A more neutral option, i.m.o., would be to divide the subject matter into Early, Middle and Late Empire, and at the same time keep a somewhat shortened general article (i.e. this one). Iblardi11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll still find scholars using "eastern Roman" as a synonym for "Byzantine" well into the middle period (e.g. here). This is admittedly not the best form, but neither is using ERE to refer only to 330-620; it can just as easily refer to, say, Roman Syria, etc., throughout the "high imperial" period. In short it's an imprecise term, better avoided. A rough division by dynasties (Constantine -> ; Theodosius -> ; Justinian -> ; Heraclius -> ), along the lines that were earlier proposed by Tourskin, might make more sense & be more consistent with the other divisions proposed. --Javits200012:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that the Latin period between 330 - 620 is very detailed indeed. Very well then. We could have a:
This is a long list but a lot of stuff happens in the Empire - wars with the Persians, the wars of western reconquest, the loss of Rome, the regaining of Rome, the rise of the Pope etc. Tourskin02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think "Byzantine Empire" should be a mere redirect to an article called "Late Roman Empire". "Byzantine" is a name known only because it was widely used by western scholars after 16th c. Current scholars' consensus is that this name is irrelevant and is only an attempt to portrait the Late Empire as something else than Roman.Potmos (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the name Eastern Empire is no longer valid after the fall of the Western Empire. From that point and on, there is only one Roman Empire (at least only one that can be recognized as the continuation of the same state).Potmos (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Both the terms 'Byzantine' and 'Eastern (Roman)' are used by scholars to denote the empire of Constantinople (cf. the titles in the article's literature section). That should be our only criterion. Whether or not we think those terms are correct is irrelevant in this case. Iblardi (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me but I don't see the problem with having two (god forbid) related articles. The Eastern Empire did presecde(sp?) the Byzantine Empire just as a small point in the argument. There is no problem with having two articles that are related historically.Philippe Auguste (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Far too many images
Somebody keeps adding in maps of the eastern hemisphere, despite the fact that they have already been removed several times. We do not need these maps - we already have far too many images as it is, and besides we already have maps of the Byzantine Empire. We need to cut down on the number of images, as they are slowing down the navigation of the text and cluttering the article. I object to these new 'hemisphere' maps, and propose they all be removed immediately. Bigdaddy120422:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also deals with the fact that they are inaccurate. It is risky to use any "world/hemisphere" map since generalization is a temptation never avoided by these map makers, no matter how well-educated or from what university they happened to graduate from. Its also highly irrelevant (situation beyond the Tigris is not important) and there are other maps with greater acuracy showing the situation. So I support removing these maps. It will also reduce the size of this article. Tourskin23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
talessman
1. Thanks for letting me know; I've never used the "talk" pages nor my own talk page, so I had no idea they were being deleted.
2. I only added these maps because I think it's great for readers to get the impressions of the world in which the Byzantines (Romans) lived. Their neighbors, trading partners, etc. Provides a very in-depth look at their environment and what their world was like.
3. IF my maps are incorrect, I openly welcome comments and/or questions! If you read the "disclaimer" I put on each one, you'll see that I don't claim they are perfect, and sometimes sources conflict. Please email me at [email protected] with those comments and what info you have to back that up. That way I can CORRECT those maps (if they are inaccurate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talessman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Every map is inaccurate. Its not a matter of if when it comes to world maps which due to their global perspective will naturally generalize. Look at the above comments regarding the Chinese dynasties and what domains they controlled. Tourskin20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide source info to back up your statement that my maps are inaccurate? If so, and if your sources are more accurate than the sources I used, then I'll gladly correct those maps and repost them. However, don't just say they are inaccurate and delete them. I did use actual sources (whether maps or texts) to come up with the borders, I didn't "just guess" at them. Just deleting them off of the article removes an otherwise excellent resource for other readers who may like to know what the world was like during Roman times. 75.39.139.62 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Thomas Lessman75.39.139.6222:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Specifically the political names and boundaries of areas such as China.
To list a few examples: in 400AD, China was not controlled solely by the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the Northern Wei Dynasty; the southern area was controlled by Eastern Jin, while the northern area was fragmented into 9 states, with Northern Wei only controlling a small portion. In 500AD, China was controlled by the Northern Wei Dynasty and the Southern Qi Dynasty, with Northern Wei having a larger portion; Sui Dynasty does not exist at the time.
While this is not too relevant since this article is about the Byzantine Empire, I don't think it's a good idea to give false information in the maps.quantum cyborg06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said look at the above comment. Answer those accusations of inaccuracy. I am only the middle man here informing you that according to Quantum Cyborg, the map is inaccurate. Don't fume at me.Tourskin22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
talessman
I wasn't fuming at anyone, simply requesting that, if you have a legitimate problem with their accuracy, please let me know how and what sources you have to back it up. Once I know they are wrong, and how to correct them, I'm very happy to do so because the LAST thing I want to do is spread inaccurate historical information.
That said, I appreciate Quantum Cyborg's information; I looked it up and it appears that in some ways some of the maps ARE inaccurate. Yikes! I'm currently fixing them and will upload the corrected versions within a few days. I would like to put at least two of the maps on this article, say 476 AD and 1025 AD, because they are far enough apart and depict the world the Romans lived in during essential times of the Empire's history. However, I really think it's good to have the 600 AD map on the site as well, since it was right before the Great Persian War and the Arab invasion.
Again, I didn't mean to sound like I was fuming at anyone. I do feel the images were unfairly taken off the article and I believe they should be allowed back as soon as I am able to upload the corrected versions. I WELCOME AND APPRECIATE any constructive criticism and information that can help improve the maps.
I was going to upload some maps of China so that we can correct the eastern hemisphere maps, but then I saw they were removed so I didn't bother.
I have to say though that even though having the Eastern Hemisphere maps are "nice", they're not really needed. Areas such as China has no bearing on anything in the Byzantine Empire as there was no contact between them.
BTW, my source for the maps of China is the Zizhi Tongjian (which I'm slowly making my way thru). If the consensus is to keep the maps, I can help with fixing the inaccuracies. quantum cyborg00:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and by the way in Wikipedia, CAPITALIZING CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THIS doesn't actually help - it makes it look like you are ANGRY. Thank you. Tourskin00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But hang on China and the Byzantine Empire did contact each other look:
“
But when the nation began to rouse itself, we, as simple peasants of Huai-yu, concieved the patriotic idea to save the people
”
— [1], Manifesto of accession, sent by Zhu Yuanzhang to Byzantine emperor, 1372
I have no idea why the Chinese, right after an anti-Mongol revolt, would bother to bore Byzantium with Chinese matters when they were struggling against the Ottomans. But there you go. Maybe the Chinese were giving the Byzantines some encouragement? Tourskin00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah I was thinking of earlier history that the maps were showing. I stand corrected that there was "contact" between the countries. The effect they have on each other is really minimal though. quantum cyborg01:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeh i know. I wa sjust trolling for moment there and simultaneously showing of my references.
So I guess that not including my vote (I remain neutral) theres two against the map (Yannis & BigDaddy) and one for the map (Thomas Lessman) - so correct or not, there's a small concensus against it being there because it seems to be "irrelevant" or not relevant enough to "clutter" the page, quoting from previous comments. But you should correct the map anyways. Tourskin01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Quantum Cyborg, could you please send me (or post) the maps you were talking about regarding China? I was able to fix the "Sui Dynasty" to the correct "Liu Song" Dynasty, but as far as Northern China, there aren't any detailed maps that I've seen that depict Northern China during this time - except for showing the Northern Wei Dynasty ruling all of northern China.
Also, another contact between China and Byzantium was during Justinian I's reign, when some Monks were able to smuggle silkworms to Byzantium, thus giving the Romans the ability to start their own silk industry. That's just one example, but during this time the "Silk Road" was still in existance.
Then I guess if this information is ued in context with the fact that the Persians tried to limit Byzantine trade with teh Chinese (the reason why the Monks smuggled the silk eggs) it would add in my opinion very relevant info.Tourskin18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to edit these files, please keep in mind that these are jpg images and are difficult to edit. I can edit them because I'm editing the original PSD files - which are over 50mb each and too large to send over the internet. However, I welcome any information or other help towards making these maps as accurate as possible. Once I understand HOW they need to be corrected, I can do so and upload the corrected version. Thomas Lessman 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talessman (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thomas Lessman
Hey guys, having a problem, you probably know more about it than I do...
HOW do I get an updated version of these maps uploaded to the site? I realize you can go into the upload page and upload an updated version of the image. Whenever I do that, it continues to display the older version of the page. I've had that problem before and actually had to rename the file. Any suggestions? Thomas Lessman Thomas Lessman19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I created a whole series of maps for this article (the 476 map, the 717 map, the 867 map, the 1025 map, the 1180 map) showing the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire, and I encountered the same problem. Each of these maps was updated numerous times, to the extent that you see the current maps have names such as 'Byzantium867AD4lightblue.PNG', or other such. What I did was just to add a number to the name of the map, for example 1, 2, 3, 4, depending on which revision it was. This method helps to solve the problem of it not showing the updated image as you said. Bigdaddy120422:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK I uploaded some very rough (and ugly =p) maps of China that I made using Zizhi Tongjian as a reference.
400AD (note that this is the approximate borders in July as China was in a severe state of war and territorial boundaries changed very often; in 400AD alone 1 state was conquered and another state was established).
The very fact that we have to look at maps of China during time periods which are arguably not even Byzantine (arguably, not definately) is making me think that the map is too much trouble. But fix anyway. Tourskin06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thomas Lessman
Thank you very much for those images Quantum Cyborg! I'll do what I can today and upload the corrected versions of those years. ALSO, if you are interested, I have the "blank" geography map available (you can have it) on my website at http://www.ThomasLessman.com/History/images/blank-East-Hem.jpg. I usually cut out the western hemisphere in most of these maps b/c it's mostly irrelevant to old world history until after 1500. Thomas LessmanThomas Lessman14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thomas Lessman
I understand your reason for renaming the version with an extra number BigDaddy, but the only problem with that is you then have to go on every page where that image exists and update that page to include the new image page.
I've recently updated several of the maps (not just the ones Quantum Cyborg showed me needed corrected. When I uploaded them, some of them updated with no problem, but some of them are still showing the old inaccurate version (even though the file info shows the newer version uploaded.) Is there any way we can delete files we've uploaded, then just upload a totally new version of the file with the same name?Thomas Lessman19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Talessman, your maps look cool! But could you upload them in a .png form? .jpg is kind of lossy... You should also consider uploading the maps to Wikimedia Commons. That way other projects can use them as well. --ざくら木16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange absense of a general history article
Why is History of the Byzantine Empire a red link? It can go into much more detail than here regarding the history of the empire without pushing this article's size boudaries. Plus as of now all the history related articles are not interconnected. Explanation? 70.51.116.20017:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. It might make way for more stuff regarding Byzantium like citizen life or something. Byzantium, as endangered as it was, still had citizens with lives to enjoy. Tourskin22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're trying to deal with the size issue with sub-articles, right? It seems to me a History of the Byzantine Empire would be redundant with the present one, or just confusing if it addressed a different subject. It would be nice to incorporate everyday-life stuff; Byzantine society might be a more appropriate title. --Javits200012:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I like your thinking! I believe that a Byzantine Society article would be excellent to cover this spot. I mean, the Byzantines did more than just worry about whether it would be the Khan, the Bey or the Sultan that would attack next. Lol. They ate olives, watched the greens and blues go at each other's throats and regularly rioted - all part of the average Byzantine citizen's life. Tourskin03:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A skeleton is already there
If it is any help to have things a bit consentrated, the skeleton for a History of the Byzantine Empire article (according to WP:SS) is already there. Here is the list:
I can see that there is a lot of information missing for the two periods in red, which need to be added. I totally disagree with the idea that History of the Byzantine Empire should be added though- it would be totally redundant and unnecessary. Also, we would have to do it for every single empire in turn, and that would be quite a mess. Monsieurdl12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see a revival at this time, the fires of southern californi have cancelled my uni for a week and now i have some time to assist!Tourskin18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A few issues to address - I have at the moment placed the non-dynastic emperors after Heraclian but before Isaurian in the Byzantium under the Isaurians article. I don't think anyone can complain cos it doesn't really make a difference whether I put it with the Heraclians or with the Isaurians. Just thought I would brag about it and let you all know.
Secondly the current layout is missing the infamous Nikephorian dynasty and the essential Phrygian dynasty - it was the Phrygians that allowed Basil and his descendants to take the fight back to the Arabs and the Slavs. I know that having three emperors in an article is hardly worth it, but we can't assimilate them (cos they have their own dynasty) and we can't merge the two or we could depending on what you lot want Tourskin22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Moscow
I've learned in school that alot of Russian culture comes from Byzantine influence. Should we make the Russian Empire a sussesor of the Byzantine Empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.138.0 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Constantine didn't name the city after himself, did he?
That Gibbon quote -- even though it's Gibbon -- doesn't seem accurate. Did he name the city Constantinople? My understanding is that the city was originally named "New Rome" by Constantine, and that Constantinople came about after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.75.8 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to John Jules Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium, Constantinople was indeed named officially during the reign of Constantine the Great in 330 AD. He says about 'New Rome' that it was an appellation- it was much like a nickname, i.e. Big Apple, City of Lights, etc. It was never an official name. Monsieurdl02:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay my fellow wikipedians here's what happened, Constantine named the city "Nova Roma" orNew Rome like York and New York, but Roman citizens didn't like the name and preferred to call it Constantinopolis to honor Constantine and it remained under that name until the Ottoman Empire was transformed into Turkey, and some people think that Mehmed II renamed the city Istanbul which is wrong peoples.User:Justinian43 —Preceding comment was added at 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maps within the first part of the article
I really like the addition of maps because it shows natural progression of the empire. The problem was that a couple were too small as compared to the others. When you already are one of the best, why not work to keep it that way? Monsieurdl23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, which maps were u referring to in particular? If you want some maps to be added in, I can try to make some. Tourskin00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone added a map, but it and the following one weren't big enough, so I resized them to make it look even. I think it looks great. Monsieurdl02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll pay attention to the removal of links more closely- normally I'm right on top of spotting the obvious stuff like that. Monsieurdl00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It has been missing for a while- I still couldn't find it going back to mid-September, so whoever erased it wasn't caught and it slipped through somehow. Monsieurdl00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Near East in 565AD, showing the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire at its largest extent.
I've taken the suggestions from here and other sites regarding the Eastern Hemisphere maps. In other words, I've cropped the maps to Near East or Asia regions, and in some cases (like the one here) I've been able to highlight a particular country for a focus for certain articles. I've finished several more maps also, from 500 BC all the way to 1025 AD (15 maps so far). Not all of those have been cropped yet. I'm also working on other maps, time permitting.
Would we like to use any of these maps for this article? It takes a little bit of time to personalize and upload each one for particular articles, but I'm happy to do so if it helps improve the article. Thomas Lessman20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due to respect to previous map makers, this map looks nice and I think can replace one of the existing ones. Tourskin23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong map in 1025
The map is wrong because it wrongly assumes that Armenia under Arab control when it was contested between Georgia and the Byzantines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In the begining of this part it says that Empire of Nicea was "controlled by the Palaiologan dynasty" , now , was it not the Lascarios family that was in power,from what i remember, before Michael VII (witch the main regent during the "rule" of the last Lascarios emperor ) the Paleologians were only held general`s(strategos) posts(at best) and didn`t had such a great influence in state politics . So wouldn`t it be corect to remove this part "controlled by the Palaiologan dynasty"? In lack of a clear refference i am deleting it, however if any argument is in favor of a powerful paleologian dynasty during the Niceean period ,then please! do put it back! and please mention the source. Adrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.79.125 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No thats a good point that somehow been missed, I know for sure that there was no Palaiologoi family in Nicaea. However last emperor was ruled by a regent headed by Michael Palaiologos. Tourskin23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Also , i think that the Empire in Exile part should be put before the Fall part as the Niceean Empire expanded and was prosperouse during it`s short time, and it should also hold a redirect with the title "main article : Empire of Niceea".
The current Reconquest of Constantinople part is somewhat confusing(i know, i wrote it and now it looks strage to my one eyes...) as at the time of the Reconquest Michael VII was allready in power, however i do not know if it was his plan ,or one of his Laskarid predecesor`s plan since he sent another general to take Constantinople...what do you know about this? any ideas,couse i`m in the fog right now(and a bit tired)? Adrian.
Michael was asleep when one of his generals was sent north to scout the straits. They then formulated the plan. Michael knew nothing until his sister showed Baldwin's imperial clothing. Michael's co-emperor (the young Laskarid) was blinded. This I know for certain and can provide sources if you wish. Tourskin01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As for prosperous Nicaeae, I can't find anything about this. In fact the south-western coast of Asia Minor was lost to the Sultanate at around c. 1210 and in 1214 the Nicaeans narrowly won a siege of their capital. Tourskin01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm...from what i remember(my source being wikipedia this time) in the Laskarid period those emperors made the last revival of the Eastern part of Asia Minor, they favored the peasents (a thing that was reversed by the paleoplogians) and the citys bloomed, as for the lose of this part of the emperors, then i belive it is the foult of Michaels poor managemant. For the first part, i do not recall Michael being "co-emperor", from what i knew he was only a regent, as for the source, i would like it, but not that i do not trust you, i just whant to study that interval a big more, also if you have anything(you or anyone else) about the Niceean Empire in particular please let me know, i would be gratefull. Adrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.74.157 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
He was regent but then made himself co-emperor before blinding the young Laskarid. The Nicaean empire may have been prosperous after 1214 but between 1204 and 1214 the Empire struggled somewhat in terms of foreign affairs. I'll add a source later today hopefully - remind me if you can thanks. Tourskin17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok here we go. I can't exactly remember what I had in mind, but I found proof confirming that Nicaea did poorly at first but much better later on:
"In the following year Baldwin's brother and successor Henry of Hainault...inflicted a serious defeat on Theodore pressing on to Pergamum and Nymphaeum...Henry would keep th north-west coast of Asia Minor as far south as Atramyttion..." This is from Norwich's short history of Byzantium.
However, Norwich then describes Nicaea's increased power later: "In the summer of 1235 the combined forces of Orthodoxy [Nicaea and Bulgaria] were besieging Constantinople..."
Later Nicaea defeats Epirus in 1253 taking much land. This is also from Norwich pg 312.
On pg 314 it states that Michael Palaeologus is sent with a deliberatly small army to Durazzo and despite his efforts beaten. This is in 1258. However, the Nicaean emperor dies leaving his young son ruled by an unpopular regent, who (the regent) is overthrown in favor of the disgraced Michael Palaeologus. On Christmass of 1258 Michael is crowned co-emperor. In 1261 Michael had his general sent to scout Constantinople (this is on pg 316 of Norwich) and because the Venetians had taken the Latin garrison to an Island the capital was easily taken. All of this info can be found from Norwich:
Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books.
I'm not sure how good this website is but despite its obvious pro-Seljuk stance it seems ok:
http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/Seljuqs.htm
The website just given explains that Antalya was taken by the Turks in 1207 and Nicaea narrowly defended in 1210. Besides, look at Byzantium after the Fourth Crusade and at 1180. Where did the southern coast go? The best explanation is that it was taken by the Seljuks after the 4th crusade. Tourskin04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Allright! Moreea, Trabizond and Venice ,ok ,but the Ottoman , Holy Roman Empire and Latin Empire? First let`s start with the Latin Empire ,it lasted for about 57 years, and after that there was only the Eastern Roman Empire left so the Latin Empire cannot count as a succeding state! Now, about the Ottoman Empire( if we put aside the fact that it was very influenced by the ERE and that it corresponded geographycally with it in the most part ) it is even less of an succesor state than it was The Roman Republic a succesor to Etruria or , as a people, the croatioans to the dalmatinans. Now about the Holy Roman Empire, to quote Voltaire: it was not holy ,nor roman ,nor an empire! In this case i don`t even begin to conceive were the link is between the two states! Any clarification anyone, please. 86.120.79.8721:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Adrian
Latin Empire continued because the title never ceased to my knowledge in that some losers out there in western Europe saw themselves as rightful rulers of Constantinople after 1261.
Holy Roman Empire succeeded the Western half of the Empire from 800 AD. So it naturally succeeds the eastern half when that fell to as both halves had in theory the right to succeed one another if the ruler was dead without a legitimate heir.
Ottoman Empire has strongest case for successor without a doubt - it overthrow the Palaologoi dynasty and established the house of Osman as ruler of Constantinople!!!
As for Voltaire, I assume you mean the guy who lived after the 17th century into the 18th century? This guy was living around the time when the Holy Roman Empire was a wretched collection of petty principalities, independant cities, de facto French bishoprics and other small states bearing little loyalty to the emperor. In the 12th and 13th century the HRE was far more centralized and in the 16th century a few decades after the fall of Constantinople it was an impressive empire with Spain, Portugal, the Americas, Germany, Netherlands and Austria (as well as some parts of Hungary) under one man. Though not for long.
Hmmmm, the Latin Empire (created with the 4th crusade) shouldn't be accepted because the Byzantine Empire finished it, re-conquering the territories in question. There certainly were some persons who claimed to be the "Latin Empiror in exile" (whatever), but empty claims are just that. Empty claims don't make an empire.
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation also shouldn't be accepted. It might claim to be the heir of the Western Roman Empire (personaly I think that this claims was also empty) but it wasn't the heir of the Byzantine Empire (the old Eastern Roman Empire). Legal theory is just that. legal theory (nothing more).
To be honest I have way more problems with Venice. Yes I know that the city formely belonged to the Byzantine empire (a long time ago) but these days were long past and largely forgotten.
The Ottoman Empire is simply what came after ("true succesor"). 1st it had the old capital, 2nd it had all the heartland and provinces, 3rd it kept the original population (the Greeks). Some might not like it but there is your heir. Flamarande23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the following should be included:
Papal States. Obviously considering that it controls Rome and what Roman population was left!
Ottoman Empire. Very obvious why.
Muscovy, since it had a Palaiologoi princess married into the family and has very similar Orthodox culture to Byzantium.Tourskin23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Far from being a troll or a perfectionist i just whant to get the job well done,at least when it comes to history(and i do not whant to know that someone who is visiting this article might get a wrong idee just because i sat back and whatched);furthermore,i seriously do not think that a troll would have spent so much time reading and searching for sources and the subject in general for such an evil thing.
Now on subject:
* The Latin Empire did not have any land in 1453 ,now did it?! It was also ilegitimate!
* The Holy Roman Empire is a succesor only in the opinion of some! It was not roman in 800 as it was not when it desintegrated,i also do not know what power does a Pope have to name who is emperor and who is not. But there is one more critical issue,that rather impresive ~324 year old gap!
* Venice was both de jure and de facto succesor,as it gained independence form the ERE and had a religious,cultural,ethnic and historic legacy.
* Now this is more hard to argue against. Let`s just say that in my opinion a state , to be a succesor of another, has to have primaraly ethnic , language , historical(and by historical i do not mean just conquering but mostly a lot of peaceful interaction) and in some cases continuity(in this sense i see the First Bulgarian Empire as a succesor of Grater Bulgaria even if those two countrys were in different regions) . However i already agreed that the Geographical argument is very important in another definition of "succesor state" so i am going to accept the Ottoman Empire as a succesor mainly in this sence.(the ethnic agrument that the greeks were inside the empire is not quite viable since all the way to 1821 and beyond they stroved to gain independece and power within and mainly against the Ottoman Empire)
* About the Papal States,well, they claimed that they were a succesor not by the ERE but by the Donation of Constantine,a forgery that is admited as being such even by the Vatican(not that they would try to hide the truth or anything,but the Vatican would be the first to deny that the Papal States were not supported legaly by a forgery). So...maybe de facto succesor,not the jure by there part but maybe even de jure from the Eastern Roman Empire point of view.
* Hard,very ,very hard! In culture , the Russians(along with the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities see the Byzantium after Byzantium article) was probably the closest to being a succesor to the culture and religion,but still...I know about that princess but dinastic relationship is to thin in this case and even if it were more solid it would still not be enough. 86.120.76.8000:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
I can see that no one here has an official and correct definition of successor, because we're basing it on our opinions. So why don't leave it as to who declared themselves as successors? That sorts it all out without fuss. I really cannot be bothered to argue what fools called themselves Roman heirs when it was destroyed. Tourskin04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure,anyone that declares itself a succesor state is a succesor state(what if Flanders did so because of Baldwin)...?!86.120.78.8609:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
So far as I can tell, one, consistent criterion is currently being applied: states that inherited lands formerly belonging to the Byzantine Empire. All of those were self-evidently influenced by Byzantine culture in one fashion or another. The question of who the "true heir" of Byzantium was is a profoundly contentious one, and unavoidably draws in modern ideological / nationalist discourses; I would prefer to stick to a criterion which is thoroughly verifiable (territory). --Javits200014:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
As i said ,that is a definition of many about what a succesor state,but to others the other criteria are more important. Now that you raised the question: what land did the Latin Empire had after 1453, in fact ,did it had any land at all,or at least a capital or some simbolic land were a small flag was flowned that belonged to the "Latin Empire"; not to my knowleage!From what i know the Latin Empire did`nt existed in 1453! And about the Holy Roman Empire,besides Thema Spania that lasted for about 70 years and was in the most part a defensive mark(small autonomus state) and that can not count as it was in Vizigoth and Al-Andaluz and Spanish hands before being a part of the HRE(and i might add also because it was`nt exactly Roman). I await your responces soon , if there are not a good argumentation i may delete the HRE and Latin Empire as succesor states(not a treat , i just don`t have much time). 86.120.77.4620:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
Lol u can deleted it but other people will come afterwards and add it if they want to!! Our discussion will probably not be the last on the matter and if u see the above u'll know its not the first lol.
I don't support the claims of the HRE, or Latin Empire - just want to make sure we have good reasons for getting rid of them. Alright then, we leave the Ottoman Empire only? I just can't have Russia out of this! Culture and Religion are strong thereTourskin00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The grounds for the inclusion of the Latin Empire seem obvious to me: it succeeded the Byzantine. The fact that this did not happen in 1453 seems immaterial to me. Likewise for the HRE: large sections of Italy. I'll admit that I find Russia problematic; territorially the only common ground is Chersonesos, with a long interim period out of the hands of either. The theory of "succession" would have to be based on the entire ideology of the "Third Rome," and I see no reason we should endorse that; nor, for that reason, to choose the Russians over e.g. the Serbs or the Bulgarians. --Javits200001:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I would be happier to see the Serbs and Bulgarians, but not Russia. We are talking about physical succession here. Johnbod01:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally if we're gonna have it one way or the other (since thats what it seems to me), Byzantium wasn't succeded by anything - because it was conquered. The Western Half of the Empire was succeeded by the Byzantine not by the Germanic Kings. So then why not apply that logic here? I mean who are they kidding, they destroyed Byzantium - they can copy the culture, take the lands and even attempt the language but thats not succession thats petty imitation in my opinion. Tourskin03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Before the Italian provinces came to the HRE hands there were not in byzantine power! The only teritory that was in discousion betwen the HRE and the ERE was Venetzia,and that conflict ended with the independence of Venice.
As for succesor states ,here is how i hope to improve the list :
Terirical succession:
* Despotate of Moreea
* Empire of Trebizond
* The Republic of Venice
* The Ottoman Empire
Cultural/Religious succession:
* Greece
* Russia
* Serbia
* Wallachian and Moldavian provinces
* Bulgaria
* Georgia
* Armenia
OR!!!(for the cultural/religious succesion part only,since Serbia,Bulgaria,Armenia and Greece were (no longer) states at the time ):
* Russia
* Wallachian and Moldavian provinces
* Georgia
What do you say? Is it ok this way ? And if so , what would you prefer the first or the second list of cultural/religiouse succesion list? 86.120.76.20111:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
Not that anybody should care , but just to inform you how is editing, from now on i am going to post under this account! AdrianCo
How it is now is much better, as discussed above. You don't seem to have support for this, so should not make the changes. Johnbod13:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above : I ,Tourskin and , Flamarande want a change ,you and Javis don`t ,3-2 . But that shouldn`t count! What does count is that we have some prety good arguments. Awaiting other responces or suggestins. AdrianCo17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on who said I wanted a change? I only want a change that will result in an improvement in my opinion. Which we don't agree on. I think we should have no succession. Like I said, all the "successors" were wannabe states. Tourskin18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As said!You to want a change,not like me,but you do want a change.Till now: my opinion,no change and no succesion ar the three opionions of three different people,anyone else? AdrianCo18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Nip it at the bud people. No successors. Otherwise its impossible to draw the line - territorially we have a half a dozen eastern european countries and Turkey, religiously and culturally we have even more. No one succeeded the Byzantine empire, a new one was formed in 1299 way before Constantinople fell.Tourskin19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Without having read most of the discussion above, I'll start my comment right off with my ceterum censeo: Ceterum censeo articula esse deboxificanda. I keep saying this, in hopes a few people would listen. Contents of infoboxes are not worth fighting over. If anything in an infobox is contentious, just scrap the whole field from the box. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of tabulated fact sheets. There is a reason real encyclopedias are written in prose, and not in the forms of data tables. Prose gives you the chance of putting things in context, weighing things, hedging things, giving the right amount of emphasis on things, in ways that infoboxes simply can't. That's why infoboxes attract an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of lame edit-warring. Infoboxes are a severely over-used feature of Wikipedia. They are evil. Get rid of them. Only things that are absolutely straightforward, uncontentious and factual should ever be in infoboxes. Anything that requires any significant degree of interpretation, hedging, disclaimers, arbitrary editorial choices or the like should simply not be in a tabulated box. Fut.Perf.☼23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is completely unacceptable by Fut.Perf.☼, and I am appalled. This is a Greek area, and not a Latin area- you must use Greek or you will be reported to the Patriarchate. ;-)
Seriously though, no successor states if it causes this much controversy- who cares, to be honest? Was not the Byzantine Empire gradually chipped off strategically by different peoples and then re-conquered somewhat by the Ottomans? That's not succession per se, but ebb and flow. For the good of the article and our sanity, just can the successors. Monsieurdl23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So we have me, Javits, Johnbod, Monsieurdl and it looks like Furture Perfect at Sunrise (longest user name I've ever typed lol!) agree on getting rid of it. Nice. A concensus no doubt. Tourskin04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, i see Future Perfect at Sunrise`s point but instead of saying no succssors i say as him and as Javis that we should delete that part alltogether!(because then there might start again that argument if wheter of not there was any succsors bla bla...).AdrianCo07:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Adrian
By the way Adrian, we have previously agreed that Byzantium began in 330 AD so Justinian's conquest of Italy in the 6th century AD counts as Byzantine rule over Italy, even if for only a few decades. Even souther Spain could be a potential successor state. No, get rid of the entire thing, yes I agree with you there!! Tourskin02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I never recall ever saying that it wasn`t , even if some may consider 395 ,whatever! In Justinian`s time Italy was a part of the ER Empire!!! What i did say is that before Italy being in HR Empire hands it was either lombard either gothic, i do not really remeber now.SO! the provinces of Italy that were under HR Empire control did not hail from the ERE , they do from the lombards.Meaning that the Holy Roman Empire is not a succssor of the Eastern Roman Empire in the same fashion that Romania is not a successor of Dacia or Current day Egypt of the ancient one(the Roman region of italy : Roman Kingdom => Roman Republic => Roman Empire => Western Roman Empire => Eastern Roman Empire/Ostrogothic Kingdom => Ostroghotic Kingdom => Eastern Roman Empire => Lombard/Gothic Kingodm => Papal States => Holy Roman Empire !!! See the hiatus?! the Holy Roman Empire province of Italy hails form either the papal states either from the lombards/goths/germans , not from the ERE)! AdrianCo21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Wrong again, Italy was Roman under Constantine I, the first acknowledged Byzantine Emperor. Anyways, this is unnecessary, we have all agreed on no successorsTourskin22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Now if you have any knowledge about Costantine I you would have been awere of the fact that he died in 337 AD, now the German rulers that followed after the ERE`s autority over Italy were in living in 6-7 th century while the Papal Stats were found as part of the Carolingian Empire in the late 8th Century...my hole argument is based upon this succesion of events and rulers , it apeares clear to me that you did not understand the point i made and the simple " => " plan of succesion that i made.....so let me repet my self....the Holy Roman Empire cannot be a succesor of the Eastern Roman Empire in Italy on account that the ERE was not the last ruler over Italy(North-Western Italy that is) before the HRE !AdrianCo (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Other infobox oddities
What is Loukas Notaras doing in the infobox? Why is his office, or he in particular, important enough to be in the box? What does he represent? Do we really think that if we are to give a reader the most important facts about Byzantium in two minutes, Loukas Notaras should be part of it? Another example of infoboxes getting overloaded with detail with no regard to overall significance. Fut.Perf.☼07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad u raised the issue of maps here Adrian but this map: Byzantium1430.JPG
Is perfectly accurate -
Philadelphia was long lost in 1396. It was definately in Ottoman hands thats for sure and independent from Imperial rule because it was isolated from the Byzantine empire
Thessalonika was not in Byzantine hands but in Ottoman hands. See Siege of Thessalonika (1422), which used Cyril Mango's Oxford dictionary of byzantium as a source.
Venice was not in control of Athens in 1430, it was independent
Thebes was in Venetian hands most likely but the map is exclusive to Byzantium and the Ottomans so it doesn't matter.
Well than i am obliged to retract my words! I agree that Morea was not that powerfull at the time,but on Athens and other Venetian teritories i must insist,you see ,for the common viewer it may not be clear that The Venetian Rebublic was a big actor in the Byzantine/Ottoman Theater, but it was! And Venetia held teritories that were formaly Byzantine virtualy till the end of it`s existence(when it was captured by Napoleon) and to the near of The Greek War of Independence,in fact,if i recall the Ionic islands were never a part of the Ottoman Empire,they were for some ~20 years a de facto Independent and de jure autonomus state but i do not whant to get into details!What i am saying now is that maybe we should not scrap it alltoghter,but could we at least modify it so that at the very least Athens and maybe other teritories or at least agree to writing at the base of the map that Athens was in venetian control.AdrianCo16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Well unless you can provide references for your venetian claims we can't do anything. Although Venice was powerful (disproportionally powerful considering its small size) it found that her Greek territories, most of which were taken in the 4th crusade and other destructive wars were not worth the resources needed to defend them. Yes Venice is in the scene. But its role is little more than attempting to hold on to her trade outposts and along the way help her fellow Christian trade subordinate (for that was what Constantinople was to Venice at this point).Tourskin20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In the current map the Ottoman presence is exaggerated, if we may believe McEvedy's New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, which provides maps with intervals of approximately two to four decennia at a time. On the map of 1430, you will find that Lesbos, Chios and a number of smaller islands in that region are owned by Genoa, while not only Euboea, but also the Cyclades and Sporades belong to Venice (which also possessed Crete and a number of smaller islands not shown on this map, as well as Nauplion and Methone on the Peloponnese). Iblardi20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the map lacks detail. It shows too few islands and the contours of the mainland are not represented accurately. The Peloponnese has only one connection to mainland Greece through the Isthmus of Corinth, the form of the Chalcidice peninsula is incorrect, and the Bosphorus should be somewhat broader than shown. O, and Euboea is really an island, of course. ;) Iblardi22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I would alos like to turn our attention to this map which is also wrong:
Yes, it looks like it. I think that this map is meant to show longer-term developments. In the source I mentioned, Georgia at least is shown as an independent state in the first quarter of the 11th century. Iblardi23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This map underestimates Turkish territory. Konya was close to the frontline but not that close - its between the three small lakes in Turkey and yet it could be mistaken for Imperial Byzantine territory. I know this is splitting hairs but we may as well correct all these new maps. This article for some reason is attracting so many maps which must be verifiable, not just any artists impression lol. Tourskin23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that 1081 map is not accurate and wrong, it's not updated because it still has Carthage as a main city, the empire had more lands in Dalmatia and bordered with Venice at that time like the "awful red one" shows, third Byzantium didn't rule Edessa like your map suggests at that time and half-ruled Antioch. The other map also the states surrounding Byzantium one thing that your map doesn't shows.Justinian43 —Preceding comment was added at 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the colour scheme and the not-so-accurate borders, I have to say that the other map was quite informative in that it showed Byzantium's direct neighbours. I also liked the narrower focus of that map. Iblardi18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
1081 map is wrong - I've raised this issue before about Antioch being in semi-Byzantine hands, under an Armenian soldierTourskin04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'm willing to drop Antioch since it was in the hands of an Armenian soldier anyways. Your maps are good in that they show the surrounding states, but you could have left a note that you were replacing all the maps with your own which unlike the ones I drew in 1263 and 1389 are referenced. So I kindly ask that you redraw these maps with the following corrections:
In 1081 there was no such thing as the Sultanate of Rum and definately not at Iconium.
Prior to 1162, the Sultanate of Rum was a tiny state that ruled central Anatolia and not even close to Caesaria, which was in Danishmen hands
Saladin, not the Sultanate of Rum, was in charge of Syria.
Please correct the above issues, or if you wish I may do so (I don't have much time though right now) and if any users have anything to add, please do so with the above list ( to make it coherent). I understand that mistakes have been made in previous maps, but you see you added your maps without a word of discussion. Well, thanks for responding. Tourskin01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Legacy: revisited
There was a lot of discussion on Legacy earlier but looking at the Legacy section now it still seems a bit incomplete. Some specific thoughts (I hesitate to add these myself at this time for lack of appropriate references):
The Empire arguably preserved the knowledge of Graeco-Roman technology/learning for the West without which the modern age in Western Europe might never had happened (or at least would have been delayed by centuries).
In conquering key Byzantine territories non-destructively, especially Egypt, Arab civilization got a rapid boost forward that it might not otherwise have gotten (i.e. rather than having to simply "learn" from the Byzantines they assimilated many of them).
The Empire enabled a level of commerce in the Med that otherwise probably would not have been possible by providing a stable currency used throughout the region, providing stable central trading centers as well as a stable consumer base for the region (this could be compared to the role the U.S. has played to the world during much of the 20th century), and providing safe trade routes (yes, there was a lot of warfare and changes but had the Empire not existed the whole region would have been much more the domain of pirates for a lot of the Middle Ages). As such the Empire can be seen as establishing economic models and patterns that continue to this day.
In a general sense because the Empire was the only stable state for a long time it can be argued that all of Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa owe the Empire for preventing what might have been a catastrophic setback in their evolution had the Empire imploded the way the Western Empire did (although it can be pointed out that the Constantinople played a role in the later stages of that implosion).
I honestly don't know if you aren't simply exagerating (or not seeing everything clearly)
- The Byzantine Empire preserved much of the knowledge of the classical world, but AFAIK it was mostly passed to the Arabs and Turks and only then passed to Western Europe (that's why so may things begin with "AL", like Algebra, Algoritmus, Alchemy, etc)
- No arguments here, however this tells more of Arab Realpolitik, cleverness, and relative tolerance (at that time) than of any particular Byzantine capacities.
- Big problem with: "As such the Empire can be seen as establishing economic models and patterns that continue to this day." this could mean anything and is way too vague. This means what exactly?
Rereading and wanted to respond. I didn't mean to imply that the above text should be inserted verbatim. I was just making general observations. Specifically what I intended to say was that economies of the Renaissance and modern age were shaped by the Middle Ages and up until the later Middle Ages Constantinople played a huge role in defining how trade was done in the Med. from establishing the de facto currency of international trade to providing shipping services (largely focused on the Byzantines but still good for the region) to orchestrating regional treaties to promote trade. Before the Roman/Byzantine era there had never been such a massive, organized international trading system as existed during this time. Obviously the Byzantines didn't do it alone but I believe it is fair to say that for several centuries they were unquestioningly in the driver's seat. --Mcorazao16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
4.- Stable is bit relative. Wars are also good for development (everybody is looking for new weapons technology, like the building of castles). It can be argued that the BE was good for Christianity (as an abstract whole) by shielding most of Europe from Muslim invasions until Western Europe (and Russia) had the necessary strength to defend itself, and the naval technology to begin the Age of Discovery. However again most of this technology came originaly from the East (gunpowder and the ) mostly by way of the Arabs.
Hold on a minute. Don't overestimate the achievments of the Arabs and overlook the work of their Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman counterparts. The thing is the Byzantines preserved the science in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries until the Arabs could "expand" upon it thereafter, thats a fact.
As for technology, unfortunately there is a anti-Western myth surrounding the nature of guns, which in fact were clearly a european invention - I'm talking about real canons of the 15th century. Gunpowder was a Chinese invention, brought across by the Mongols and their Rocket Launchers and adopted by the Ottomans. The Arab/Turkic Mamelukes described the arquebus and cannon as a "contrivance artfully devised by the Christians" (Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. 129. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)) and finally improved by the West towards the close of the 17th century. The above mentioned source also states that an English ambassador to the Ottomans in the 16th century described the Turks in the following manner: "no nation has shown less relcutance to adopt the useful inventions of others", Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. 130. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), thereby clarifying my point. Anyways...
I'm not overestimating the Arab/Muslim contributions (and they are many, I suggest to read Islamic Golden Age), but IMHO Mcorazao is discounting/ignoring the Arab link. I never wrote that the cannons weren't a Western European invention (I clearly wrote gunpowder, which AFAIK came from China). However he stated a lot of points, many of which are unclear. Flamarande06:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to underestimate Islamic achievments - yes the west were barbarians in the 7th century compared to the east but the article itself states that having the Golden age attached with the rise of Islam is a misleading cncept, particularly if one ignores the contributions of Middle Eastern Christians - notably Syrian Christians and Iraqi christians - one of the (many) reasons why Islam is tolerent of the monotheistic faiths is that many individuals who contributed to science were Jewish, Christian or Zoroastrian. Enough Political Incorretness from me now. Tourskin07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Be all this as it may, Mcorazoa raises some important points, and we should figure out a way to incorporate them, even if some of them require refinement. Some of these issues are already discussed above "legacy" in other subheadings under "culture"; they should perhaps be moved down. My own thoughts:
1.- There are two main lines of transmission from Byzantium to Europe: the short one (the role of Palaeologan intellectuals in the Renaissance) and the long one (translation of Greek into Arabic during the Abbasid translation movement; translation of Arabic into Latin from the 12th century on). The "short route" is briefly mentioned in the section under "Science," which is actually a bit backwards; most scientific texts were transmitted via the "long route" (see e.g. under Almagest). Palaeologan intellectuals were primarily responsible for introducing Greek literature, philosophy, rhetoric, etc. to Italy (see e.g. Manuel Chrysoloras). There's a good discussion of the "short route" in Sevcenko's article on Palaeologan intellectuals in the Oxford History; the first (i.e. Byzantine) half of the "long route" is covered by Dmitri Gutas, Greek thought, Arab culture (Routledge, 1998).
Yeah, this is true although I am fuzzy on some of the specifics. That is, it is certainly true that the path of direct transmission of knowledge from the Arabs and Turks was the largest. However, the role of the Byzantines should not be overlooked. Certainly if the Empire had vanished in, say, the 6th century there would have been far less to transmit. Even after the initial Arab conquests there was still a lot of contact and interaction back and forth. Certainly the Arabs made tremendous strides in their own right but is it fair to say that if the Empire had vanished right after the 7th century Arab conquests that the Arabs would have still had the same level of accomplishment (certainly their empire might have been larger but that's a different matter). --Mcorazao15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the Byzantines are absolutely crucial to both "routes," and intellectual exchange between Byzantium & the Caliphate continues for many centuries, operating in both directions. I differentiate between the two routes simply in the interests of greater precision in describing the Byzantine "legacy." --Javits200016:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2.- This is a far trickier question. Certainly Greeks, Syrians, Arab Christians, etc. in former Byzantine territories played a major role in the administration of the early caliphate (e.g. John of Damascus and his father); the same can be said of the old Sassanian elite in the eastern territories. The question would then be to what degree administrative structures were preserved (this is tied up with the maintenance of Greek as the language of the administration in the early caliphate) and for how long. But certainly the Arab acquisition of Greek science and philosophy involved an active effort on the part of the Abbasid caliphs, not just "assimilation."
I am not implying the effort was not active. But using the analogy of corporate takeover there is a reason that taking over a business can often be far more beneficial than simply learning from your competitors. It's not the manpower, the resources, or even necessarily the customer base. It's that when you integrate a culture that has experience at being successful at something that culture can be far more valuable than the individuals or the resources. --Mcorazao15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3.- This also requires a lot of unpacking, e.g. via Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy (Cambridge, 2002). I reserve comment until I refamiliarize myself with his arguments.
Understood and agreed. I am not an expert on the history of European economies. But I read a lot of commentary from various resources that says in various ways that things that the Empire did were key to trade. As a particular example the solidus was the standard currency for centuries supposedly because it was by far the most stable. The fact that countries to this day use currencies whose names derive from this implies how long lasting its effects were. --Mcorazao15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
4.- Here I'm in full agreement, and to me this is a far better formulation that what we have at present under "legacy" (i.e. Byzantium as protecting Europe from the "East"/ Islam). As "the last ancient state" Byzantium provided a degree of continuity and, yes, stability in the Mediterranean that was beneficial to all the "successor states," whether in Europe or in the Near East. The question is how to state this without making it sound overly vague; what to cite; etc. One way to approach this is via the emulation of Byzantium (art, court ceremony, titulature, etc.) by the Western successor states, at least up to and including the Carolingians.
In any case, these are all good "talking points" and I think will lead us to a more complete assessment of the Byzantine legacy. I would also like to rethink the current paragraph on "Byzantinism"; it's an important subject, but we should also concede the possibility of a positive assessment of the Byzantine legacy in Southeastern Europe & (not mentioned at present) Russia. This might include moving the discussion of "Third Rome" from "Aftermath" to "Legacy".
A suggestion for organization, in four paragraphs: the influence of Byzantium in the early middle ages on the formation of the successor states (in West & East alike); the transmission of Greek literature & science; the role of Byzantium in "international politics" during the high middle ages; "Byzantium after Byzantium" (including but not limited to the negative assessment of "Byzantinism"). --Javits200016:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think what is missing (and you touched briefly on it) is the role of Russia in all of this. When the Byzantine Empire collapsed, it made Russia essentially a caretaker of the pure Byzantine Orthodoxy. This most surely should be mentioned, and I have a couple of resources that would be ideal for explaining why it was important. No one really takes into consideration how much Orthodoxy grew and the role it played in the establishment of the churches throughout Eastern Europe. Monsieurdl16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So this is all very good discussion. The reason and obviously there is a lot of debate about the legacy which is why good sourcing is especially important. Anybody want to recommend some specific sources to use to construct the enhancements?
"...a society which alone preserved much of the Greek and Latin antiquity, during these dark centuries in the West when the lights of learning where almost extinguished..." Reference:Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books.
My reference is Ware, Timothy (1993). The Orthodox Church: New Edition. Penguin.. It has excellent information on the birth and continuance of Orthodoxy. Monsieurdl16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do any of you that have access to these references want to take a stab at a rewrite of that section? As I mentioned although I have knowledge of a lot of specific details most of my commentary on the legacy at this point falls in the category of "original research" since I don't have resources that would back up my conclusions.
Yeah I have them. I'll see wat I have. Usually when I make such changes, people start screaming about the extra kilobytes of this article. Let me take this time to say that 1000 years of history cannot be restricted to 32 pathetic kilobytes. Thats only 32 X 1024 X 8 - 262144 characters lo. Tourskin20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Should The Justinian Plague section be made
My fellow wikipedians and historians I have been bothered by the fact that in the section of Justinian I and his succesors totally ignores the fact that in 542 AD the plague hit the Empire and Constantinople and at its peak it killed 6,000 people daily in Constantinople and at the end of it the Empire lost 25 million people and that's why the Empire had troubles keeping Italy safe and the loss of half Italy when the Lombards attacked and it came back every 8 to 12 years until around 700 AD decimating the population in mass numbers, this is one of the main reasons the Empire lost territories up until the 8th century so it's not a coincidence okay. I think somebody should add a section regarding the plague or insert an internal link somewhere in the article, Thank you. Justinian4320:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
One Plague killing 25 million? I ask that you give me some references or else allow me time to find this. I was under the impression that the Byzantine Empire simply could no fight the Lombards and the Persians on two fronts, so, so far away from the Capital (both directions). This is a problem encountered later by the Ottomans who find it a pain to say the least to keep the Persians and Austrians away. I don't oppose any of this, and if this the truth, lets add but lets acertain if this plague really did kill so many. Tourskin04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading about this plague also, I think in John Julius Norwich's book. There are other references to it as well, mainly on Wikipedia, but I swear I remember reading about it in other non-wiki sources. What I remember is that they were linking the plagues of 535-545 AD to a possible volcanic explosion in Indonesia around the same time. Sorry I don't have any other references handy at this moment... Thomas Lessman23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, Procopius and Gibbon said the plague killed 10,000 people daily in Constantinople, that was an exaggeration, modern studies show that this plague killed like 5,000 to 6,000 people daily and like the bubonic plague it spread through the Empire by trading and campaigns, Italy already weak from the Gothic Wars now faced the plague so the defense of Italia declined badly hearing of this the Lombards invaded and triumphed, and the Persian border was quiet at the time of the first plague and by the end of it, it decimated the population. The empire finally recovered in the 8th century the time the last plague faded but its territories were much smaller.I read this in some World History book as well as several byzantine history books.Justinian4319:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Capital
Regarding the following statement,
It was he who moved the imperial capital in 324 AD from Rome to Byzantium, refounded as Constantinople, or Nova Roma ("New Rome").
I believe this statement is misleading. By the time of Constantine's reign Rome had ceased to function as an administrative capital for about half a century. Milan and Nicomedia had been functioning as centers of imperial administration during the interim.[1] I believe (if my understanding is correct) that what was unique in Constantine's establishment of the capital in Constantinople is that, whereas Diocletian and his successors had simply tried to downplay the republican institutions in Rome (namely the Senate) Constantine actually tried to reproduce those institutions, in an altered form, in Constantinople so as to explicitly negate the importance of Rome as a whole. So I think this statement is pointing to something important although not what it actually states.
Well to be honest I don't think the remaining 30 million subjects of Rome knew that Milan or Nicomedia was the new capital. Its all about the ideology my friend. From Romulus' Rome to Constantine's Constantinople. Tourskin (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement Mcorazao quotes is, however, fairly inaccurate. First, for the reason he cites: Diocletian, and in his wake the tetrarchs, makes an obvious (and intentional) break from Rome. Strictly speaking, in the "decentralized empire" of the third century, there was no "capital": the new imperial residences (so, Nicomedia, Milan, Trier, Thessaloniki, etc.) are contingent upon the emperor being there (thus for example Nicomedia, which loses its importance after Diocletian steps down). Maxentius attempts to re-establish Rome as the capital, but following his defeat by Constantine no other emperor makes a similar gesture. But, second point, Constantinople is originally no different from the other "tetrarchic residences." The Valentinians pay little attention to it (thus Valens takes up residence in Antioch.) The claim to be a "Nea Roma" appears first in the later fourth century in the context of Theodosian rhetoric (I believe the term is coined by Themistius). And it is only with Theodosius that Constantinople becomes the, so to speak, permanent capital of the eastern empire. All of this is discussed in great depth in E. Mayer, Rom ist dort, wo der kaiser ist: Untersuchungen zu den Staatsdenkmaelern des dezentralisierten Reiches (Rome is wherever the emperor is: studies on the official monuments of the decentralized empire). In any case a more accurate statement would be something like the following:
There is no consensus on exactly when the Byzantine period of Roman history began. Many consider Emperor Constantine I (reigned AD 306–337) to be the first "Byzantine Emperor". It was he who established his imperial residence in Byzantium, refounded as Constantinople, which over the course of the fourth century would become known as ("New Rome").
It's not necessary to go much further into the details at this point in the article (for example, I wouldn't mention Nicomedia), as the section is concerned with the meaning of "Byzantine," not with tetrarchic history. --Javits2000 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That was far too easy, my friend. Luckily there is a lot more on Byzantine history than one might expect out there! Sourced on request! Monsieurdl (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks; but I am still a bit of a doubting Thomas since this is the first time I come across it - and I have come across many Byzantine articles etc. Politis (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Aaa...did anyone noticed that we now have a brand new map showing the ERE`s maximum borders(after Heraclius) , wasn`t it good when we had the all-time empires maximum borders? . Reverting! AdrianCo (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
New succesion problems
In the top of the box we find the Flag of the Republic of Turkey but that redirects to the Ottoman Empire.We allready agreed about the succesion ...that there did not take place a succesion because there were varying criteria being employed ; so :
Wondering if anybody has a scholarly reference on the following.
From my reading of history, it seems to me that prior to the Roman/Byzantine Empire there was never a concept in the world of a large scale, formalized religious orthodoxy in the sense that there would be a formal concept of heresy and infidelity. More to the point it seems that one could argue that the Byzantines were the world's first true religious fundamentalists and that the Arab caliphates may, to some degree, have learned fundamentalism and religious intolerance from the Byzantines (although obviously they were originally more tolerant than the Byzantines were). In addition one could argue that the Franks (Holy Roman Empire) and other Westerners learned their intolerant attitudes (which had not really been quite so prevalent in the Roman era) from the Byzantines leading to the Crusader/Reconquista/Inquisition mentality that "you're either one of us or one of them." (among other things the Byzantine attitude of equating heresy with barbarism seems to be their invention).
This is original research on my part but I wonder if there are any authoritative sources that have reached a similar conclusion. If so this would be an interesting aspect of the Byzantine legacy to mention (i.e. that the issues we have today with fundamentalism in the world is a legacy of the Empire).
This query yielded a lot of tangential discussion which did not really address the specific question. That discussion has been moved to the following section. If someone in the future actually has an answer to my original query I suggest responding on my personal talk page for the sake of avoiding further flame wars. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Miscellaneous debates about religious persecution
Since most of the discussion in the previous section was unrelated to the original query I am moving the unrelated discussions here so as not to obscure the original query (i.e. so that if anyone actually has an answer to the query at some later time they might offer an answer). For what it is worth I am sorry that I somehow irked so many folks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentalism and toleration are two different matters- you can still have a fundamentalist society and yet be tolerant of other religions. Christians had been singled out for persecution long before the Eastern Empire began, starting with Nero. It is my opinion that the fear of being overrun by hordes of Muslims had a lot to do with the gradual 'us versus them' mentality, and the fear of death by famine or plague were very real examples as to why religion was very important. Nobody wanted to die and go to hell, and so why not play up that possibility? I disagree with you on it starting with the East, but I agree with you on the rest, with my additions. Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge wide spread persecution was against Novatians(by Macedonius) , Donatians/Donatists(by Costantine the Great...but it is arguable if that was the ERE acting...more likly it was seen as an action of the Roman Empire as a whole) and against manichean-like heresyes (pavlicians,bogumils,etc)... but those were rather small, the perescution that DID take on a smaller scale but with a grate impact was agains the Monophysith and Nestorian sides that had suffered expecialy during the raign of Justinian I by non-payment, a perecution(exile or death) to it`s leaders(mostly monks and bishops) and there nephews did remember this and brooke of with the Empire.
As for influencing the West...well...Alexius I Comenus asked for help, he wanted knights not full scale war...the Pope called for a Crusade and the rest followed....might i note that the inquisition started in the west and the it was in about the same time that Constantinople was conquered...Don`t get me wrong there were great religious problems in the east...as for religiouse orthodoxy...there were some times when Emperors endoresd (against the will of the people...oh..please not another edit-war) religions other then Orthodoxy...it had little effect in the end but there were notable emperors that were Iconoclasts or Monophysits(e.g.: Heraclius) as for persecution...it happend in India to ! Long before the ERE was formed....or in Persia(Mani was originally in jail before being allowed to preach)...so.....i don`t think so... AdrianCo (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
To say that Byantium was a fundamentalist or extremist state is a great insult to this mighty Kingdom. It is well known that the Byzantine Empire never saw the idea of a religious warfare, whether that be against Catholics or against Muslims. Only Nikephoros II proposed the idea that soldiers going to heaven straight away after death, like the early Jihads and later Crusades. The Byzantines saw warfare in the following manner, to quote from this reference: Haldon, John (2000). Byzantium at War 600 - 1453. New York: Osprey. pp. p. 29. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Warfare was to be avoided at all costs. Diplomacy was the key.
Different religions were greatly tolerated. There must have been a number of Catholics in Constantinople during the 11th century since Alexius I is recorded to have "re-opened Catholic Churches" following the initial healing of the 1054 excommunication.
Manuel Komnenus I had Sultan Kilij Arslan enter the Hagia Sophia, in a gesture of friendship
The Crusades were seen as barbarians, the Jihad seen with great contempt and hatred for their constant Anatolian raids.
Basil II (or the I) suggested soldiers abstain from Holy Communion for a short time.
It is true that Byzantium did persecute the Nestorian Assyrian Christians, and other christians like the Copts and Armenians. Much of these persecutions were politically motivated - the Sassanids had an interest in Nestorian christendom, the Armenian church's independence was also a source of political independence and any difference in opinion between the alledged "representative of Christ on Earth" (Imperator) and the subjects was treason. Tourskin (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I'ld call it "fundamentalism" but someting new does come in with Byzantium: the idea that "knowledge of the One God both justifies the exercise of imperial power and makes it more effective" (G. Fowden, Empire to commonwealth [Princeton, 1993], 3). That is, the connection between religious orthodoxy and the claim to world rule, which remains a constant in later Byzantine history (thus e.g. the explanation for the arrival of the Arabs: Heraclius was a monothelete, etc.) Fowden's book is an excellent study of this and includes an extensive discussion of its similarities to the political ideology of Islam. --Javits2000 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats not new. Knowledge of the Roman Emperor as a god was seen as a justification of world rule by Ancient Rome, because Rome was the greatest and the many sacrificed to the Imperial cult, worshipping the Roman Empire and the Roman Emperor - ever since the times of Augustus. This in term evolved from worship of the Persian King - I know the bible isn't much of an academic source but Daniel was thrown into prison initially for refusing to worship the Persian King and instead worshipped the Monotheistic God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims etc. Tourskin (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The crucial distinction is that, in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, the orthodoxy of the emperor (and his subjects) was never seen as the root of military success or failure -- compare the attitude of e.g. Theophanes, who blames the Arab incursions on Heraclius's monotheletism. Again, Fowden is very much worth reading on this subject -- it's a short book, and engaging as well. --Javits2000 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all I would like to note that this is a compleatly diferent topic : "devine right" or maybe better "interference of politics in religion".
Second . In the Eastern Roman Empire the Emperor was never regarded as a god or anything close .
" Apostle Peter sais : <Fear God , honor the emperor>. He does not say <emperors>... but <emperor> and,through this, he afirms that there is only one emperor in the world ... The Holy basileus(my note: ad literam king/ in this case emperor) is not a ruler like any other,that governs over some simple teritories...He is anointed with the holy myron(my note: i do not know wheter this is the Myron or the more rare Holy and Great Myron...there ar diferent) and consecrated <basileus and sole ruler/master of the romans> , so that he governs over all the christians in the entire universe.
(The letter of patriarhc Antonius the IV-th , great Cneaz of Moscow , Basil I , 1395).
I would like to make an important note that Antonius the IV-th is not a saint of the Orthodox Church to my knowledge and according to the Ecoumenical Patriachate`s website http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en were the saints have their celebration dates under square brakets. And i also do not know that this position was of an Orthodox Synod or part of the Holy Tradition(of the Orthodox faith).... so this is more likely a personal opinion influenced more by politics than orthodoxy.
As for the patriarch-emperor relations...they were often tense and the topics of disagrement were more often : inter-patriachate-relations, dogma, doctrine and moral issues(of some emperors).There are numerouse exemples in this sense and they are easyly found. I also remeber that there was an Orthodx bishop or archbishop of Alexandria that reminded the emperor that he is human!One more note : the letter that i quoted above(from Antonius IV-th) was in the last years of the empire ... so it is not very likely that there were further developments of the "devine right",if it can be called so , of the byzantine emperor. In conclusion : In the ERE the emperor was never regarded as a god or something near...and while there are many exemples of emperors that tried to influence the Church , or amplify his say in Church problems, but there never was a "devine right" like it was in England (see Henry VIII) or in France(see Louis XIV). AdrianCo (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Let me make my point clear - the link between divine mandate and divine rule is what I am saying. In the Roman Empire the emperor had divine rule. With Christianization it became divine mandate. And it does have a link - heresy is treason and dealt with vigorously in the empire.The end. Tourskin (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh oh, almost forgot, this is a talk-page , not a "i say....the end!"-without-arguments-page... so i hope this helps! Battle of Dyrrhachium(1081)...just a small exemples were heretics fought for the empire...oh...and i also do not remebmer any army incorporating individuals that are regarded as traitors in it`s ranks...do you? AdrianCo (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Divine rule --> The ruler is a god and his rule is divine.
Divine mandate --> By the power of god, the ruler is such and exercises power as god's representative
Heresy is treason --> Any heresy in the empire that is. Foreigners will be foreigners and hold foreign views - not of Byzantium's concern - see my comments below. Tourskin (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it's easy to overemphasise the importance of religion in the operation of the Byzantine state. The Middle Ages were the Ages of Faith - everyone was superstitious, every sovereign entity on Earth sought divine justification for its ordering. To be sure, the Constantinian adaptation of Christianity instigated something new: the universalist religion combined with the universalist state. The Imperium was now literally the "Kingdom of Heaven" - the reign of the saints as prophesied in Revelations. But I think it's interesting to note that the Basileus was still God's Vice-Gerent on Earth, the supreme terrestrial ruler, long after the Empire's terrain had dwindled into nothingness and Constantinople was essentially a colony of Italian/Turkish interests. As Gibbon might point out, the combination of Christianity with the state actually made it less important, not more important, to conquer the world - if the heathens wanted to fall into error, they would have to answer to God far above the power of the Emperor to correct them. So to summarise Mccorazo - I don't think that the Byzantine Empire was necessarily very different from the earlier Christian Roman Empire, or from the states of the West. The interaction of Christianity and the state is an endlessly fascinating topic - but Christianity always had a conception of the state as distinct from religion - something that other universalising religions such as Islam and Judaism have and continued to struggle with. Slacspeak up!23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that while Byzantium saw the rest of the non-orthodox world as heathens, they made a fine distinction between politics and religion. True, fighting the Muslims in the East was considered by the Romans more honorable than the Bulgars (who had christianized later) according to John Haldon but it was for ideology. Byzantium made allies with their Catholic counter-parts Frederick Barbarossa, with the pagan Kievan Russ, with the Jewish state of Khazaria - even the Fatimid caliphate was useful when the HRE got a little too much. So you see, Byzantium did not introduce religious fundamentalism nor did she entertain such ideas. The Western Christian nations could not bare to stay allied with one another for too long without raiding each other's borders - same thing for the independent Emirs of the Islamic East. The Byzantines allied with all and made no religious discrimination in Politics, marrying their daughters to whatever Khan could muster the most troops. Tourskin (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
My original inquiry has generated a lot of discussion. I'll add a few thoughts in reply:
One of the comments seems to equate "fundamentalism" with "war-mongering" and seems to vaguely imply that this war-mongering is an inherent characteristic of Islam. I certainly said nothing like this and I reject this notion explicitly.
On a similar note there was the suggestion that I implied that the Byzantines wanted the Franks to launch a bloody massacre of the Muslims. I didn't say this either. I was more referring to the fact that, starting with the Franks forcing orthodoxy on Western Europe and proceeding to the Inquisition and various other social policies, one can see patterns in Western Europe's history that could be interpreted as mimicking the Byzantines.
Regarding the whole Roman pagan persecution of Christians thing, I believe this idea has been largely discredited. That is, certainly it is true that there was persecution of Christians but
Christian "heretics" were persecuted far more after Christianity became a state religion than Christians were persecuted before.
To the extent that Christians were persecuted before I think most scholars would agree that this had less to do with religion and more to do with the fact that Christians were seen as a subversive cult.
The comment "Byzantine Empire was necessarily very different from the earlier Christian Roman Empire" is a straw man argument. The Byzantine Empire and the "Christian Roman Empire" are the same state. The notion that they are different has been discredited in modern scholarship. So to argue that the "Byzantines" didn't invent it because the "Romans" had it is implying I said something that I didn't.
The notion that the Byzantine Empire had a substantial separation of church and state I can't see substantiated by historical records or scholarly consensus. One of the defining aspects of the Empire, especially after Justinian's legal reforms, was the integration of the church and state and the emperor's establishment as the head of the Church. This is not to say that the Byzantine's didn't see any difference but the religion was a key part of the state's identity and purpose.
I don't disagree that the Middle Ages was an age of faith. The question is, how is it that the whole world near the Mediterranean became so similar in its thought processes regarding formalizing faith and formalizing segregating people of different faiths, even subdivisions of the same faith. It does not seem that before the Romans there was ever such a concept.
Regarding playing the HRE against the Muslims, I don't think the Byzantines tended to see either as more or less Christian. They were barbarians from their perspective. So if they favored Muslims over Franks that isn't evidence of religious tolerance, per se, only that they were pragmatic.
I do agree that the Byzantines did interact with non-orthodox people a lot including inter-faith marriage. But one could interpret that to a large degree as hyprocrisy and/or Roman pragmatism. And the fact that a group is hypocritical in some circumstances does not negate their stated beliefs; it just makes them human.
Anyway, the only thing I was suggesting is that the Romans created a society in which only one vary narrowly defined religious viewpoint was acceptable and all other religious viewpoints, be they called Christian or not, were viewed as inferior and, to one degree or another, actively repressed in a formal manner throughout the later history of the Empire. That attitude appeared in many societies that followed and so I am suggesting that it was a Roman ("Byzantine") invention. The war-mongering stuff and other tangential discussions are a completely different matter.
And to reiterate I was looking for a scholarly reference not a debate.
Another good source, besides Fowden's book cited above, is G. Dagron, Emperor and priest : the imperial office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003). --Javits2000 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember, emperor, that you to are a mortal, fear the Day of The Last Judgement and take care. Do not mingle in Church matters. You do not have to show us the right way, on the contrary, we have to show it to you. God gave you the monarchy, he gave us the churche`s matters. Give, it is writen, what is of cezar`s to cezar and to God what is God`s. If it was not given to us to rule on earth,you don not have,on your own part, the leadearship of the rite on earth , emperor.
(The letter of Saint Athanasius I to emperor Constans II(or Constantine II,not realy sure) , 340)
Well I Mcorazao, i think we have a tipical good-ol`fashion-submiting-to-the-emperor-on-comand-bishop on our hands,now don`t we? Cos` after all, the emperor was the had of the church, we just need "a scholarly reference", why debate when we allready know how things were... I mean, how would of thought of such imbecility that a bishop might undermine the emperors power in the Church, that was consolidated by the council of ...oh wait! There was not council that proclaimed the emperor as the head of the Church . I could see it now, Mcorazao,Javis and Tourskin together : "But Adrian ! We never said it was an official power of the emperor, but a de facto one...silly Adrian..." . So before you do that please read again that letter and also remeber : John Chrysostom , Photius , Ignatius I, Anastasius,Nikephoros I,Michael I and Polyeuctus to name just a few patriarchs(i do not gave the requied months on disposal to add the whole list plus the list of bishops)... No, the emperor still had limits to it`s powers although they may appear that he had complete absolute(not a gramatical error,see aboslutisom , complete absolutism is grammaticaly correct) power in the empire at a first glance, he did not have neither any formal and neither effective complete power in the Church...that being said, some emeprors did preside over syonds and others even tried to interfere....well...Ephesus II did not last in the ERE , now did it?(just an exemple).
Now if i claimed that the emperors never had an influence i would be narrow, let`s just remember that the Antifones(a sort of songs) were included in Church service by Justinian I ! But, if an emeperor ever tired to attack something that held to the Orthodox Doctrine, the reaction of the Clergy and of the People was harsh! Either during the emeperors life time or afterwards he has considerd a heretic/persecutor/etc....
Tourskin ...well i am not sure if it is a good term ... but a "mandate of haven" may be a sort of explenation that would be shorter than "the-emperor-is-emperor-because-God-allows-him-to-live-in-his-position" or anything similar...but what i said was that he was never regarded as a God or anything similar ,rembemer?! While you wrote "Knowledge of the Roman Emperor as a god ...." it was agains this that i wrote my refutation, he did was regarded so in the Roman Empire prior to Constantine(by non-christians of course)....but in the ERE never!
Mcorazao, let me remind you of Origen that wrote against Celsus and said loud and clear that christians were loyal to the Empire!!! Christianity was never a "subversive cult"! I would also like to add that the spread of "orthodoxy" by Carol the Great would appear at least idiotic in the eyes of eastern orthodox christinans(see Filioque ) ...oh Javis, what is that say? and.... BY THE ROMAN CHATOLIC CHURCH AS WELL!!! you see, when Frederick Barbarossa tried to consacrate him as a saint of the Roman Chatolic Church with his anti-pope , the Roman Chatolic Church did not agread! The reasons why I do not wish to discuss in this allready to long argument....BAH! I grow tired to write and find all that i have so far...let`s say thay at a first look Tourskins enumeration of arguments for religous tolerance seme fair...
Oh , one more thing, the bogomils that fought agains the normans in that Alexius I- Robert Guiscard battle were part of the population of the empire as they were moved from Anatolia to the Balkans and the Syrians were for a very long time a part of the Empire, so what do you regard as "foreingers" in this case Tourskin, anything non-greek maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCo (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Folks, what the heck are you talking about? I thought the original replies were tangential but these latest replies have gone way off topic. I couldn't find more "straw men" if I were standing in a corn field. I only responded to the debates to disuade people from putting words in my mouth but I see no point in pursuing that further. I will say that I resent the implication that I am anti-Byzantine since I have personally made multiple efforts to clean up anti-Byzantine POV in various articles. I similarly can't fathom how the anti-Christian label is justified.
Anyway, it seems clear nobody has a response to my original query so let's close this discussion.
The issue was not if you are or not a pro-byzantine or anti-byzantine ... you see, I consider my self a rather "problatimistic" person in matters of history(although i am not one to hunt for conspiracy teoryes etc...)...so i regard any simple explications like : "middele ages-the ages of religion" or "the people folowed the emperor/ruler/king like dumb sheep" statemant as incorect...because it is never simple, history is never that simple expecialy if you try to define a 1000 year period! Yes religion was important in state bussines, and yes rulers did have a grater role but let us not forget the exemple of Thomas More for instance(and yes he did live after the Middle Ages but i do find him as a good and well knowned exemple) and let us not forgot that in that time ... people did chalange secular power when it came to religiouse issuesAdrianCo (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
This discussion has gone quite out of hand and I no longer see the point. I have read briefly all your comments and would like to say that what has been discussed here is either irrelevant or about to be added or has been added. See Byzantium under the Heraclians for more religious violence in Byzantium. Can we end this now? Tourskin (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok; although I do not like to let a thing unfinished(and would have prefered that you had read the comments not briefly...)! AdrianCo (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Something about economy
Didn`t the shift of influence in the Black See from the ERE to Venice and Genoa contributed(greatly) to the empire`s economical downfall and to the prosperity of does 2 republics?(I mean does routes to Crimea, Dobruja,Bulgaria and others if there existed... ) AdrianCo (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Yes it did. It should be mentioned there somewhere. Its also in Decline of the Byzantine Empire. According to Cyril Mango's Oxford history of Byzantium, Constantinople recieved 20,000 gold coins a day from taxing trade at 10% under Manuel Komnenus. Theres no such income under the Palaiologoi - the capital was too ruined and trade "too lost" for a basis of recovery. Tourskin (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then, map would be apreciaded, i might have one, but if so it is copyrwrited ... and as you seem to have more accurate information than I do in this section,then please add them! AdrianCo (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?
One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.
Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading in a book "The Fall of the Roman Empire" that after the conquest of Carthage by the Vandals peace-talks were held. In the end in exchange for Roman recognition of the Vandal souveragnity over Carthage the more westernly territories of Africa were returned to WRE hands. I honestly don't know if and how the western Romans returned. I suppose that after (perhaps even before) the end of the WRE these territories were largely abandoned (a bit like Brittania?) to the locals. In the end the Byzantines conquered to whole area only to lose them to the invading Arabs. I'm going to try to find the book to give you more details (this might take a while). Flamarande (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok found the book, and the following: Carthage was conquered by the Vandals and "three years later, the western government signed a fresh treaty with Gaiseric. Under its terms he kept the regions he had lately seized, while ostensibly (though not permanently) returning the more westerly regions of Morocco and Algeria that he had occupied earlier." The Fall of the Roman Empire, page 17, by Michael Grant ISBN1-89880-048-0 Fine book which shows many problems plaguing the Western Roman Empire. Flamarande (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that info, Flamarande. We've also been able to scrape up some more info through various sources, though it's limited info. The section in Praetorian prefecture of Africa on "Conflict with the Kingdom of Garmul", explains that local Roman-Moor commanders set up their own dominion, much like Syagrius' Domain of Soissans, and later found themselves in conflict with the Byzantines after the reconquest of N. Africa. It makes for an interesting read, and we're currently researching more info to make a possible article out of it. Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Spelling error
"Whatever paper might be presented to the Emperor (Alexios III) for his signature, he signed it immediately; it did not matter that in this paper there was a senseless agglomeration of words, or that the supplicant demanded that one might sail by land or till the sea, or that mountains should be transferred into the middle of the seas or, as a tale says, that Athos should be put upon Olympus."
Should it not say Alexios II instead of Alexios III? If so, why is it not under the section of the fourth crusade? Alexios III was not in power unril after the Isaac Komnenos Angelus. Tourskin (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, that quote is correctly attributed to Alexios III, as Alexios II was Manuel's child. Though it could be that the quote was about Isaac II, but I beleive it was Alexios III whom it is referring to (I remember seeing that quote in JJ Norwich's book, I think.) Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yannismarou, I restored the Language section but simplified it a bit. Perhaps some more simplification is in order (you are correct that the article is long).
The section on Heraclius that you mentioned does not touch on most of what this section is saying. Regardless I think the language of the Empire is an important aspect of the Empire's culture and merits its own section although one can debate about how much detail to go into (again, if you want to try to abbreviate what I have said in this section, please feel free). Among other things some key points that I mention that I think are interesting and not obvious to most readers:
The Empire did not "become" Greek nor was it true that the "Greek" and "Latin" parts of the Empire were entirely distinct. Greek was a major part of the entire Roman Empire (West and East) long before even Julius Caesar. This is often portrayed erroneously in articles on history and it is valuable to clarify.
Latin didn't just disappear from the Empire in the Middle Ages. It's role had been gradually waning in the East since before the Fall of Rome but the legacy of the language continued for a long time.
Greek was not the only language in the Empire even after the Fall of Rome. Although it is commonly perceived that "Byzantine" and "Greek" mean the same thing it was really only in the last few centuries of the Empire that you could say that Greek was the only significant language of the Empire. Before that there were a variety of languages used and not just in the "folk language" sense.
Here it is people, marvel at it. When you have taken all the satisfaction that you can from looking at it, please let me know if you wish to incorporate it into the article somewhere. I know that some people (no names, ahem Yannis, only joking) do not wish to expand this page. Ironic because expanding the Empire is the only way we can save it from all those Crusaders and Jihadists sacking it - haha, get my joke? Anyways, take a look:
I can only speak about what I know but.... well, as you said in your Byzantine reconquest article Chersonesos was not an important trade route, now, call me a patriot but i think that the trade routes in the black see were more "costal"(it wouldn`t make any sense to travle all the way to Crimea without stoping in places such as Bulgaria, the mouths of the Danube, Chilia, Cetatea Alba(White fort), and the many sites between Dobruja and Crimea. Now I know where the Don lies so maybe Chesonesos could be left there.
As for the East side of the Black Sea, well i seriously think that there were many harbors that were part of the routes(in Armenia, Georgia, Alania, the Khazars , etc...), concerning other parts of Europe, the trade routes (as in the case the Black See) were more "costal"
Any way ; thank you very much for this map, I know that i did nothing to help in this case and criticised a lot but I tip my hat to you! By the way, i think a good place to put the map is at the Economy section! AdrianCo (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
This is quite impressive, and I think would be an important contribution to the article. Two small quibbles: 1) the black arrows pointing east and south. I understand the idea, but the direction of the arrows make it look as if these products were being sent east, not acquired from there, as was actually the case. 2) For "Adulis," read Aksum.
In addition it might be better to make clear what period this is meant to refer to: from the territorial indications it would appear to be ca. fourth century -- which is also what the caption suggests -- but some of the industries indicated did not start later than that (i.e. silk production was probably introduced to Byzantine Syria by the fifth century, but appeared in Asia Minor & the Balkans quite a bit later; see the EHB) and Venice wasn't really founded until the eight/ninth century, etc.
On direct trade between Cherson and Cpl, see e.g. T.S. Noonan, "European Russia," in T. Reuter, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History III (Cambridge, 2005), 490f. Direct trade was preferable as it avoided putting in in enemy territory. --Javits2000 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - don't be shy about criticism, I need to know whats good for the map. I used Phillip Sherrad's book, which is from the late 60's, so maybe its out-datedness let me down. Ok so change the name of Adulis, change the direction of the arrows, make the sea routes (especially the Black sea route) coastal. I need a source for the latter bit. As for dates - the thing it has to be sometime after the 7th century. So ninth century seems good; thats when the Kievan trade routes were established. Also, don't forget Baghdad and Basra - those weren't around until the 8th century, although trade to Ctesiphon and others was established.
So then I think I should get rid of the green stuff and show only the 9th century empire? Yeh? Let me know what you guys think, whilst i work on it. Tourskin (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm... in history class the teacher said ,what i rembember to be, that "Dobruja, after the reconquest of Constantinople was reinocrporated into the Empire",(see Asen dynasty rebelion) oh, and look here[[2]], anyways I am not trying to say that the current teritory of Romania was part of the Empire(if i ever say so please hit me. Hard! :) ) however Dobruja was in many times a part of the Empire(usualy disputed with the Cumans,Pecenegs and the Kievean Principality) but i do not know to what period of the 1000 year span do you refer. Anyway I said that i refer to only the domains were I have info, but the costal trade routes were present in all the middle ages in most(or all countries,well maybe not the Vikings), be them Greek or Italian,Frank or Scott,Orthodox or Chatolic,Taoist or Muslim,! so my plea was to all the map(i can`t think that there were only 3 economic hubs in Italy,2 in Spain and 0 in Dalmatia(!!!) that were part of the Empire`s routes), also, for most of the Middle Ages the ERE monopoliesed the economy of Europe(including West).But as before, still a good map, showes the extent of the trade routes, at last in general witch is still much, much better than nothing! Thanks again Tourskin! AdrianCo (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Ok heres another map, its only slightly changed but give me specific criticism so I can improve it:
Well not quite criticism :)...don`t get me wrong but...Dalmatia without a single outpost?! Cyprus(see Limassol) ,Corsica,Crete,Sardinia with nothing, these were all quite large islands, there must have been at least one great harbor in every one of them. I`m even less sure of this but what about Rome, the Pentarchy consisted of the sees of the four great cityes(demographycal,cultural,economical) of the Empire + Jerusalem, so what about it(Rome)? Also, in Asia Minor, the trade routes seem to avoid the west coast(with Ephesus,Smyrna,etc...)... Don`t have a clue about the East of the Black Sea East, but i do think that there had to be intense contact(that region stil has a lot of Byzantine influence, and in the past vice-versa, as the Trebizond Empire was established with the help of Queen Tamar of Georgia if i recall...). The nord seems great, I think, cos` the Empire`s influence over there would have been overstreched, so yeah! a few trade routes, don`t have much info though...In Spain i am clue less, but i do think that Gaul/France/Arles/Aquitaine/Neustria had more ERE trade in them then just via Marseilles.Oh, and wasn`t the name of the great outpost of current day Tunisia called back then as Carthage(i remember that this city was rebuilt and remained for a long time an important economic focal point) Keep up the good work. AdrianCo (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
... yeah and I forgot about southern italy.... aahhh my head!!! OK!! I will fix this all!! don't no one worry!!! Tourskin (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop with the edit wars!
Kékrōps, Javits2000, please stop your edit warring. Roderick Beaton is a respected scholar on Greek culture.[3][4] If you have a concern about the authoritative nature of a source that should be discussed. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you. The comments you are trying to introduce are not scholarly consensus. If you believe otherwise then you need to justify this viewpoint (and by justify I mean not just that one source states this; if you want to prove consensus then you have to establish that this a widely shared viewpoint).
I apologize -- I hadn't noticed that you'd switched sources on the second edit. But neither do I see how that passage from Beaton could be read to justify removing "culture and population" from the lead. This is obviously a somewhat contentious issue (there are whole archived megabytes of the talk page taken up with discussions of "Byzantine identity"); my own opinion is that it would be better to introduce more discussion of other cultural traditions within Byzantium than to deny the presence -- and indeed predominance -- of the "Greek" strand. In any case the sentence in question involves the reasons for the Latin appellation, on which Beaton has nothing to say. --Javits2000 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
This comment seems to be self-justifying. Unless there is a source that explicitly says it is not true then we should keep it? I don't think so.
The point is that most modern sources -- Beaton as just one example -- say that up until the very late history of the Empire it was multi-ethnic and that the "Greek" culture was only one part of the Empire, albeit a very important one. As to whether it was "dominant" that would be a matter of opinion (many emperors were not ethnically Greek). I agree that discussing the differing opinions on this may be worthwhile but not in the introduction.
As far as why the Westerners referred to the Empire as "Greek" it is perhaps reasonable to say that it was because they perceived the Empire as having exclusively Greek ethnicity, but that is not what the sentence says. Granted you could qualify the sentence more if you like but that, to me, seems to be getting into a lot of ugly details that are not appropriate in the intro.
I believe that mentioning the dominance of the language alone is sufficient and succinct. I don't think most scholars would consider that statement inaccurate nor biased. The worst that can be said is that it is incomplete but that can be said of virtually any statement that summarizes a complex topic.
On further reflection I agree that the sentence would remain accurate and sufficient without "culture and population." I would at the same time suggest that justifying your edit with a citation to an inflammatory website (I refer to this) made it look far less like judicious pruning, far more like POV-pushing. --Javits2000 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Was there another cultural component greater in influence than the Greek one? Because I do not accept the statement above that the Empire must be having exclusively Greek ethnicity in order for the Greek element to be the dominant one. Even if we accept that the Empire was multicultural and that the Greek component culturally and population-wise was just another minority (something that is very unlikely but let's do so for argument's sake) we have to accept that within these minorities the Greek minority was still the largest minority and thus the most influential one, therefore dominant. The language of the Empire was Greek and this had a powerful effect on culture because it affected the legal, religious, military and civilian components of the Empire. That the ethnicity of some Emperors was not Greek has nothing to do with cultural dominance because the non Greek emperors did not try to impose their culture on the Empire. So if there is any dispute, it is only with the population numbers not with the predominance of the Greek culture. It is also telling that the contemporary Westerners called the Empire Greek. The Westerners were not naive. They saw an Empire that spoke Greek, a religion that was in Greek etc. etc. I don't accept the quote above: "perceived the Empire as having exclusively Greek ethnicity". No they did not. They were not that clueless. They just perceived the dominance not exclusivity of the Greek culture. Dr.K. (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Also directly quoting from the above (POV-pushing) link:
Within the last two centuries, we have seen the western literature label the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) as "Greek Empire". Once again this is largely to the inventions and distortions of the western historians of the 19th century, who also falsely ascribed "Greek" ethnicity to the ancient Macedonians. These people took the fact that Greek was used as the language of the Empire and declared that the Empire was ruled by "Greeks", had "Greek" armies, "Greek" churches, and "Greek" art. In other words they spoke of the Byzantine Empire as a "Greek Empire", a view which had been completely supported and propagated by the modern Greeks as well. Despite the obvious POV origins of this source it actually serves to strengthen my argument. Quote: Within the last two centuries, we have seen the western literature label the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) as "Greek Empire" How can anyone argue with two centuries of western literature and historians' accounts? Not to mention the Western accounts of Byzantium's contemporaries. Surely not me. Dr.K. (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Folks, the point here is scholarly consensus. The introduction should simply try to be very neutral. Getting into these details in the intro is not really appropriate.
Responding to some of the specific comments ...
Are we seriously arguing that Western biases could not substantially color their perceptions? I don't know how to respond to that. By that argument the Empire was a forgettable, decadent society since that was largely the Western perception for centuries (I could create a litany of such discredited perceptions).
Remember that the Byzantine Empire was frequently judged based on Constantinople which, of course, had strong ties to Greek culture. But the Empire was not Constantinople.
In any event the issue is not which culture had the upper hand. The sentence as stated implies that the Greek culture and ethnicity was almost exclusively the identity of the Empire. As I said you could go into more detail in the introduction to clarify the point but that much detail in the intro is inappropriate. The point is that we should simplify down to clear, neutral statements.
I am not sure I understand the POV-pushing argument in general. All sources are pushing their POV; that's what they are supposed to do. I do accept that the first link was not sufficiently scholarly so I selected a source that is more scholarly. But I'll reiterate that it was not my job to prove that these comments should be left out but rather the job of the supporters of the comments to prove that they should be kept in.
Anyway, can we just remove these 3 words? If somebody feels compelled to add something more about this in the culture section that is up to you.
Let's not confuse the assesment of the historians about decadence, bureaucracy, duplicitous practices etc., that can be argued to some extent, with the analysis of the sociocultural structure of the empire. They are two qualitatively different things. The 19th century historians may have been overly harsh in analyzing the political/bureaucratic structure of the empire and talked more about decadence and murder at the expense of more positive things but that doesn't mean all their conclusions about the empire were wrong. They were not blind. They could see the pervasive influence of the Greek civilisation on the Empire. They may have analyzed it harshly but that doesn't invalidate their assesment that the empire was influenced predominantly by the Greeks. According to your model the 19th century historians were a bunch of mindless automatons and anything that they said is wrong. I don't accept that. Historians of the 19th century may be have been coloured by the prejudices of their era but not everything that they said can be dismissed in a wholesale fashion. Even today, with the proposed multi-cultural model, the Greek predominance is not denied. Further I don't see the implication that the Empire was exclusively Greek from the disputed sentence. It just says Greek culture and language dominated the empire. Which happens to be true. If you dominate the culture and the politics of Constantinople, the seat of Government, you dominate the rest of the Empire. There is support from historians that this was so and noone seems to deny it. There is no reason therefore to modify the lead. Dr.K. (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You're allowing your biases to color your perception. I agree that technically the sentence does not specify exclusivity but it would be extremely easy to interpret the sentence this way (in the same way that an article on Saudi Arabia might say that it is "predominantly Muslim" to imply that, with minor exceptions, the nation is entirely Muslim). Arguing that because the sentence doesn't technically specify a bias it is unbiased is not fair.
As structured the sentence perpetuates a stereotype even without blatantly stating it.
P.S. I didn't say anything about 19th historians specifically nor did I say anything about any historians being automatons. That's ridiculous. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I could mirror the bias argument by saying you detect exclusivity even when not implied, but I will just have to agree that we disagree. I also agree that you did not call the 19th century historians automatons but I just wanted to emphasize the point that these scholars could process some types of information correctly and that not all their conclusions were wrong. I also agree that you did not mention them specifically but if we deny their scholarship we have at least to try to analyze it. They were after all mentioned in the POV-related website above. Having said that I wish to acknowledge that you are a fair-minded debater. Dr.K. (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
c
The article "Eastern Roman Empire" should be merged with Byzantine Empire
Having the two articles as seperate is ridiculous. They were seperate once; then were combined and stayed so until someone decided to seperate them again. There is really no point in that. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't claim to have followed the entire course of this -- but didn't we discuss this last year? (See under "Eastern Roman Empire" above). So I Agree now as I agreed then. Large chunks of the Eastern Roman Empire article are in fact copied directly from the early sections of this article; what has been added is not cited (based on a very quick perusal it looks accurate enough, although there are plenty of gaps). What is needed is a more detailed article on early Byzantine history, just like the more detailed article on e.g. the Komnenian dynasty, and that seems to be what the ERE article is attempting to provide (the main article, for example, skips from Constantine to a brief mention of Theodosius). But that article should not be named "Eastern Roman Empire," for the simple reason that "Eastern Roman" can be used as synonymous with "Byzantine" for the entire period from Constantine to 1453 (see my remarks in the previous discussion). --Javits2000 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
East Romance languages
Is it a good choice: to NOT have ANY reference about the beginning of the east romance languages in this article "Byzantine Empire" ?
Well, the "Romance languages" are Latin, in its later stages, so in a sense they are mentioned in the Language section. As far as the East Romance languages specifically, the question is what can and should be said. The precise origins of the "Romanians" is not firmly established. It is not clear whether you could say the language developed in the "Byzantine Empire" per se (depending on your precise definition of the beginning of the Empire).
I suppose the section could at least say that at some point the Eastern Romance languages became important to the Empire because the Vlachs were neighbors.
Hm...myself being a Romanian I can tell you that large parts of current day Romania were at times either under direct Byzantine administration either in a strong cultural, administrative(by adopting of byzantine titles), religious and economic ties. But, there are strong evidence that the Romanian language(the largest of the surviving east romance languadge) appeared North of the Danube, so ...I don`t konw, at least not yet...But, from the information we currently have, the East-Romance languages were spoken in the Empire, yes, yes they were! AdrianCo (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't try to claim to be an expert on Vlach/Romanian history. I am aware that the language was a part of the Byzantine Empire. I've gone ahead and added a mention of this in the section. As I say, I am not sure what is the "right" thing to say (i.e. how to discuss this tersely). Please feel free to edit as you see fit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I did not say that first contact with the Vlachs was "late". I said that the language became important "later" as the Vlachs developed a clearer identity and became more powerful. All the history of the Vlachs in the earlier periods of the "Byzantine" era are disputed as far as I understand. Maybe they originated in Illyria. Maybe further down in the Balkans. Maybe in Dacia. Maybe in some combination and the fact that all their languages are so similar is simply because they were close enough to have a lot of contact through the centuries. The point is that there is not a clear consensus as to who or where they were until the late 1st millenium (it is clear that there were Latin speakers in the Byzantine Empire before that, of course, but whether these were the ancestors of the Vlachs or simply other groups that were assimilated by the "Greeks" is unclear). I didn't elaborate on this in the text precisely because the history is debated and cannot be fairly discussed without a lot of detail.
Scholarly claims of Byzantium ceasing to exist after 1204
I noticed that Kurt Leyman had removed the sentence regarding the alledged idea that scholars believe that Byzantium ceased after 1204. Whilst I have reverted this removal, I do support it and ask that whoever added it in add in a citation or something - some scholar (not Dan Brown please). I think 3 days is plenty enough time before this claim, which may seem absurd, is removed. Tourskin (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to resolve this once and for all. Create an aticle like Byzantium under the Romans or something, to show that the article deals with pre-Heraclius times of the Empire. We agreed a long time ago that the article needs to be split up to add in more detail and stop this one from growing out of control. Well we need an article that deals with pre-Heraclius times, Latin times of the Empire, 330 - 620 ish. Tourskin (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don`t realy understand what this is about...But I assume that it involves the Empire`s history from the 4th to the start of the 7th centuries, if so, then it is stil the history of the ERE, so i realy don`t think that we should spilt it, remeber , the rules on wikipedia may be bent if there is a serious cause, and as this article is almost as complex as they get...I think thatwe should not be split, but you can still try, although I think that you will have to face the problem that almost every aspect of it is very important and that some areas aren`t even explored enough. Sorry for that reverting...i didn`t realised that it reverted to this article for that moment, I was a bit sleapy if i recall. AdrianCo (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have "split" the articles. Check it out:
Sorry to butt in people but the map "The Byzantine empire and its neighbours in 1045" is incorrect. The provinces Sirmium and Dalmatia in 1045 did not exist. In the provivince of Sirmium Kingdome of Croatia was established, independent from Byzantium (the Pope sent the crown and officially recognised the country in 925.) Also Province of Dalmatia is HUGE, at that period and a century before that it was limited only to the islands and a narrow strip of land. Also the cities of Salona, Ragusa, Iadera, Senia,Aenona, Tarsatica,Issa, Pharus, Absorus, Arupium etc. were only nominally under Byzantine controll, they paid taxes to the King not to the Emperor, and later on they were incorporated into the kingdome. Please find another map. This one is out of date by over a century and maybe even more if we were to go deeper into the past it would become obviouse that Croatian dukes owned alliegence to Franks e.g. Charlemagne in the earlier periods not the Byzantine empire.
Kontrolleur Cro (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008
Without going into too much detail, your argument is sketchy and terribly composed. You speak of Charlemagne (800), Pope sending the crown to croation (925) and speak of the Dalmatian province a century ago - all dates that are many years away from 1045. Countless sources, such as Cyril Mango, John Norwich, Phillip Sherrard and books such as the "Compact History of the world" all agree with Byzantium's extensive borders in 1045. What you fail to realize is that in c 925 AD, Constantinople was in danger of being taken by the Bulgarians. They were not a position to defend Macedonia, let alone Dalmatia. The fact is, there is a massive difference in Byzantium's territory and manpower between 925 AD and 100 years later at 1025 AD. Your information is out of the time period, look at sources about Byzantiumin 1025 AD and you'll see what I mean. Tourskin (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK then how about the map from 1073 showing: Byzantine Empire without Croatia
( meaning province of Dalmatia and Sirmium and the city of Sirmium is located in southern Hungary )and a small arm of the empire stretching to river Bosna. The German Empire is in the north with their southernmost town being Pula on Istra peninsula ( on the east Adriatic). Dubrovnik and Kotor are municipalities with the highest degree of autnonomy and with towns such as Trsat-Tarsatica, Senj-Senia, Nin-Aenona, Solin-Salona and Split-Spalattium being in Croatia it is impossible to claim that at that point in time Byzantine empire had any controll over them. 925-Croatian Kingdome,some towns in Dalmatia are governed by the King, sorry this had no basis. But I am sure that this is correct I am on line in the library and the book is in front of me. Btw it says that Solin and Nin are or have been at one time places from which the king reigned. I guess Salona is not a likely place from which the king would give orders if it was in another country.
Kontrolleur Cro (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2008
Wrong again!!!! Do you not see that 1073 is after 1071!!!! AFTER theBattle of Manzikert!! You are still making the mistake!! You must understand that no empire in the world has boundaries as fluid as Byzantium. Croatia and Dalmatia were lost sometime before 1071 but no earlier than 1060.I apoligize for the capitals but you truly do need a 1045 map to talk about 1045. The Empire's nadir and apogee was within the same century. Tourskin (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You are using correct sources that are out of context. Please, see a map of 1045 to understand 1045!! The Empire lost 2/3 of its territories within 40 years in the 11th century, just as it had done so against the Arabs in the 7th century. Tourskin (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we ignore Kontrolleur? He is just espousing revisionist history which is so common among Croats regarding the late Roman and Byzantine periods. The geographical area in which the State of Croatia is now located was under the control of the Byzantine Empire in 1045, get over it! 124.177.36.96 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Spiridon MANOLIU, I know you'll be angry I undid your edit so let me offer an explanation.
As mentioned before there is a great deal of debate about the origin of the Vlachs. It is known that the ethnic groups known as Vlachs at the end of the first millenium formed the base of the Romanian and other Latin peoples we know today. But the history before that is not known and, so far as I know, there is not consensus on how the Vlachs came to be. Quite frankly, I actually think the viewpoint you are suggesting is the correct one. That is, it makes sense that the Vlachs were simply "Byzantine" Latins who gradually migrated around Eastern Europe. But obviously your opinion or my opinion are not really what is relevant. One could make the blanket statement that any Latin speaker in the East after the Fall of Rome was a "Vlach" but this is stretching the use of the term to something that scholars would not necessarily agree with.
To answer the obvious question others might have about what is the alternative possible history ... One possibility is that there was a tribe of Latins in Dacia, the Vlach ancestors, who had been there ever since Roman colonization (whether they were Roman settlers or Latinized natives is another question). This group may have been completely separate from native Latin-speakers in the Byzantine Empire (although presumably for some time they could actually understand each other). The Latin-speakers in the Empire may have been assimilated into the Greek-speaking culture and the Dacian Latins (i.e. Vlachs) may have migrated into the Balkans later becoming a "new" Latin group in the Empire. This in part could explain why the Vlachs have been seen historically as distinct from the Byzantines even when living among them. I am not saying that I subscribe to this theory but it is one theory that some scholars subscribe to.
Sadly Spiridon MANOLIU does not know english, so he asked me to respond, he does give good references on my talk page...I currently might not have the time, but I will try to explain his possition a bit clearer. In a nutshell: he states that the latin speaking people we now called Romanians evolved both North() and South of the Danube. AdrianCo (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you guys have good sources and want to put it back with citations go ahead. I won't object. As I say, I am not a historian. I've had similar discussions to this one with others and concluded that there is not a genuine consensus among scholars. But I am no expert.
I am curious to know more about what information you guys have.
19:08, 22 February 2008 163.181.251.9 wrote: "Undid revision 193318723 by Spiridon MANOLIU: Not clear that this is accurate; relationship between Latin groups in early Middle Ages and Vlachs of later Middle Ages not proven".
Well: if the Vlachs of later Middle Ages are not the result of the evolution of the Latin groups in early Middle Ages, were are they from ? From Dacia (opinion of the south-slavic and some romanian historians) ? But the german, hungarian and russian historians have another opinion: the ancestors of the Romanians came from the balkan area, their ancestors are the early latin groups from the Byzantine empire... Who's right ? Who's wrong ?
It is a political incidence in history when some historians wrote a nomadic history about the Latin groups : germans, hungarians and russians historians support the south-north migration idea against the romanian arguments about their ancient history in Transylvania and east-Moldavia (Bessarabia), but south-slavic and greek historians support the north-south migration idea against the aromanian arguments about their ancient history in the Balkans; some romanian historians support this thesis because that's good for the romanian thesis about Transylvania... Oh, boy !
The answer is in the languages. Why are the Romanian and Aromanian languages so different ? (in Aromanian: no hungarian and very few slavic words, but many greek words from the early Middle Age; in Romanian: many slavic and hungarian words, and the greek words are all in their slavonic version).
Mystery, mystery... if we refuse to consider that the early Latin groups in the lower Danube have a different evolution in the north and the south side, as the gallo-romanic groups who given a Langue d'Oïl in the north of France and a Lengua d'Oc in the south...
So I had responded to your comments in our talk pages. Was there a further point here? In other words, can you substantiate a claim to scholarly consensus on any of these issues? As I said, I don't dispute that your assertions are probably correct but that's beside the point.
^Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. 99. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Tourskin (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
.PNG)
Tourskin (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)