Talk:Byzantine Empire

Rework of Religion version 2

Biz, Aza24, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 and anyone else interested, I will finish moving and checking citations, but for the most part I am done. If you don't like it, then I won't add it. Or I can add what there is, and you can change and adjust as you see fit. As you wish. Let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, you can add it; everything will need editing in the second FAR phase anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! I'm good if you add it, it's an significant improvement. We're going to focus on summary style and/or restructuring the content later, but only once we know what we have as a baseline. The priority for now is evaluating the existing content, verifying the existing sources, and updating the scholarship which you've done. Biz (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please add! I echo the above that your efforts are eons better than the current text – Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that means I have to finish the work with transferring and checking sources. Will do that and will then publish. Thank you all for all your input and assistance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, but since I have looked and noted an art section, I am going to move the iconoclasm paragraph from religion to the art section. It was not just a religious issue, it was also civil, and impacted art the most. There is now nothing in the Religion section on iconoclasm. You can always move it back if you disagree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Aza24. I moved some detail into a note and it isn't showing up, can you fixit for me? Also, imo, there is way too many citations to a single source. I can't believe no one at FA will ding that. Is no-one concerned about that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the note should be fixed now. We had discussed iconoclasm before; it also appears briefly in the history section, so once the article is closer to finished, this will probably be more closely addressed.

I agree that the Kaldellis citations might be an issue. When they're used in tandem with others for the history section, that seems more appropriate; I'd say the Government and military may be more of an issue, but it doesn't look particularly egregious either. Aza24 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that! Surely one location for iconoclasm will be sufficient. Moving the paragraph that begins From the ninth to the twelfth centuries... to the legacy section that discusses that should also be considered. Byzantine Christianity basically created Eastern Europe, but it only needs one mention, and legacy is probably a better fit than religion.

My finder says Kaldellis is mentioned over 100 times. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved the short content on the Slavs to Cultural Aftermath where it seemed to fit better. Adjust as you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Single references to Kaldellis are for uncontroversial topics. I can beef those up, was planning to do this anyway, as I'm getting exposed to more scholarship now.

As for the use of Kaldellis, it's intentional as is the use of Treadgold (over 50 references) who are the only single author historians to have have written new narrative graduate-level histories over the entire history in the last century (Ostrogorsky, the other, his first edition was that long ago). I only remove sources after I read them and decide they are low quality, I try to keep what we have, but usually find reasons to rewrite. Biz (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I noted above that there is no reason to believe that histories by single authors are more high-quality than general collections. If I remember correctly, you then pointed out a thorough critique of Treadgold's narrative by Kaegi, thus showing the weaknesses of relying on single-author narratives? I had not noticed the excessive dependence on Kaldellis and Treadgold in certain sections—that will definitely have to be rectified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm confident we can find issues with every historian. Regardless, we can always add more. If someone wants to tag the article on sentences that look weak, happy to prioritise that. Biz (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with user:AirshipJungleman29. It isn't a question of weak content. I don't think anyone has issues with him or his work. I looked at his book, and it's good work. I think he is well respected, but FA tends to dislike over-dependence on any single author no matter who they are. Consensus is one of their bugaboos, and it can only be established through multiple sources. Just sayin'. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the reasoning is that if you don't include other sources, you cannot be sure if something is WP:UNDUE. This is especially true on very broad articles like this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just removed the shorter of two nearly-identical paragraphs from the religion section, on the assumption that the expanded version was intended as the final one (see informal edit request below). If that's not the case, please undo my change and delete the longer paragraph instead. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up, I can confirm this was a duplicate. This entire section needs review still. Biz (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Controversy Surrounding the term Byzantine Empire

What do you reckon to Draft:The Controversy Surrounding the term Byzantine Empire? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems a fairly standard LLM-generated text—not allowed on WP for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether it is LLM, but it isn't ready for the main space. It contains a lot of irrelevant material (the "origins of the term" section) and seems to be written with a PoV embedded. Note that the article takes many opportunities to present the arguments critical of the term, but far less for the opposite (one uncited paragraph). Either the article is biased or there is not, in fact, a controversy. There are also a lot of uncited claims. Furius (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

(The title isn't ideal, either; though I'm not sure what the right name would be) Furius (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Historiography of Byzantine terminology" may be more appropriate. Themes are appropriate but the lack of citations is problematic. Some factual errors which reflect what this article showed 12-24 months ago.

For a minimum standard there needs to be a citation, at minimum for every paragraph and the text in that paragraph reflected in that citation. Editor should be encouraged to get to 500 edits so they can get access to the Wikipedia library which would be needed to research a topic like this.

Additional viewpoints are needed. To be helpful most recently, Howard-Johnston his July 2024 Byzantium book reflects a mainstream scholar and the late antiquity view which has dominated this past generation; Kaldellis in his 2023 book outright rejects the term and how it needs to be dropped in scholarship reflecting this emergent third view challenging the original Gibbon view that was inspired from Italian humanists and the post-Mommsen era German scholars that late antiquity emerged from, etc. Biz (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the author of the article. I am new to this whole editing sphere, but I am very passionate about Roman History as a whole. And I am aware that the article is not finished yet I just submitted to see how the qualification system works, and how other editors would react. But thank you for your honest feedback! Artaxias V (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Try a peer review next time instead. They are worth their weight in gold. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Only sources i agree with we can use" 149.62.206.82 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice attempt at a conspiracy theory but it’s not like that. Propose a source and I’ll evaluate it and tell you the good or bad. Biz (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Wildy POV, apart from anything else. The draft speaks of the "Roman empire" throughout. If Western historians were to stop using "Byzantine Empire", which I don't think they will, they would go to Eastern Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire), terms that I don't think appear in the draft at all! The main objection to BE, that the term was not used by contemporaries, is a weak argument - this is the case for very many ancient and medieval states. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations

For completeness to keep to a standard in this article, I want to share the approach to citations. The below is how I'm running with it based on different discussions with @AirshipJungleman29 and my experience on this article this year.

• we are using SFN and SFNM, with HARVB for multi-author compendiums, and nothing else.
• We only add to the bibliography if a source is used more than two times, and books should be removed otherwise
• Each section to have a minimum of three sources for diversity of views.
• Not all sentences are the same: some are well established facts, others are opinions, and many are debated so the sources used and amount matter depend but this is case by case. Below are some principles
  1. Each sentence to have a minimum of one citation. Three is the goal (though difficult to achieve in some specialist topics). If just one source, consider naming the author if it's an opinion, if it's stating facts, try to add minimum two as authors get their facts wrong.
  2. Kaldellis, Treadgold, and Ostrogorsky are the three people to have written modern graduate narrative histories (ie, which influence all other publications, like say mass market historians like Norwich) so it's a baseline for citations. With of course the more recent the better as there is 100 years between their publications and research has dramatically improved since the pioneering work of Ostrogorsky
  3. Oxford and Cambridge have edited collections and so along with the above mentioned narratives gives us a good survey of the literature. Many of the authors here I've seen here will go on later to write books as specialists.
  4. Each topic has specialists so authority of views depends on the topic. Some I've found to illustrate the point: Pryor on the Navy, Rochette on language, -- in this case, they seem to be the only people with quality recent scholarship which becomes obvious when you look into these topics; Kaegi's the only person to write a book on Heraclius; Howard-Jonstone with Treadgold and Kaldellis are recognised experts for the middle period. We almost need an article in itself to list which Byzantists have focussed on what topic.
  5. There is nothing wrong with other sources, but they need to be coupled with the above so that we don't have fringe views shape the narration. So in other words, the above narrative historians, the above edited collections, and when it's clear someone is an expert it means if they cover it, we cover it; if they don't cover it, we should not cover it.

Biz (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an edit of this page

Hello. I am a new editor and I can't edit this page. Towards the end of the religion section, there are two paragraphs starting with "For centuries, many cultural, geographical ...". The two paragraphs contain some duplicate sentences and I can tell it was an oopsie from somebody. Someone should fix it if they have a moment, because I can't Fantasyfootball420 (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fantasyfootball420, I'll sort that out in a moment, thanks for bringing it up. In case you want to suggest edits on any other protected pages, you might want to use Template:Request edit. This adds your request to a specific maintenance queue that is watched by other editors, so you can guarantee that someone will see it. Some talk pages don't get much traffic and your request might go ignored otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

was a greek state since 700s, 1200s or never? 176.92.154.183 (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It was a Roman state. Greek was the main language, but Greek was also a main language during the Roman Republic and the Achaemenid Empire. Yes, modern Greece gets its language, legal code, and (previously) state religion from it but that's not the same. This question is not related to the article's content, so that's all I have to say Biz (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Greek was not a main language of the Achaemenid (Persian) empire, merely in the regions of Anatolia where Greeks were living as also in Cyprus. But not a main language of the empire. Greek was a main language of the Roman Republic and later Empire indeed but that's different from being the only official language as it was in the Byzantine Empire after a point.

Also, modern Greece doesn't "get its language" as a sudden irrelevant fact, I don't think that's how anyone could phrase the historical continuum of Greek and its usage by the people as something that merely happened. And Greece still has a state religion, it didn't change this.

Overall, reading the article for the Byzantine Empire its quite obvious this sense of trying to make the associations with Greece and Greeks as more vague as possible...Quite disturbing considering the actual heritage, language, religion and history of that state. VanMars (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by your last paragraph VanMars? Do you have any reliable sources that provide a different viewpoint? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@VanMars Anthony Kaldellis has said it was the medieval expression of a Greek nation and a pre-modern nation state. He also calls it the Roman Empire and rejects the term medieval, so settles on East Roman. The only sources that call it a Greek empire are dated western European ones before the 1800s which not by coincidence is when we see the uptick from Greeks due to the new Greek state and the 1844 introduction of the megali idea in politics. We are boxing this article as a standalone empire centered on Constantinople that ties into the Roman before it and we can show a link in legacy for its impact on Orthodox Europe after, but the Greek nationalist view that you are so adamant on is not the consensus. Does Greece get its heritage from it, absolutely. But is it a direct link, no. Biz (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting take...and somehow dishonest we need to admit. Dishonest since you kinda confess that the article is purposely written and presented in a way to cut off any direct link between the Eastern Roman Empire and modern Greece in order to stop any nationalistic ideology or narrative from modern Greeks that this is their own medieval past...

Greece doesn't get just its heritage from it, but its language (which the article doesn't even explicitly establish that the Eastern Roman state had Greek as its official language and very much was centered around it, its whole identity was centered around it and thats something even Kaldellis mentions) and of course its religion and memory...So what is the "direct link" that Greece's missing? The political one...the Eastern Roman state fell. Right?

But as far I remember the Serbian Empire also failed, the Bulgarian Empire also failed etc and took centuries from having again any states that supposedly continued the existence of these states after their liberation from the Ottomans..and nobody objects their link to these medieval states. Nobody tries in Wikipedia articles to make these medieval balkan states less specific and nuanced...and we do had also equally nationalistic ideologies (similar to Greek "Megali idea") coming from modern Serbia and Bulgaria as well...much of their objectives during the balkan wars and even later come directly because of them having the ideology linked with the lands once ruled from these medieval states. So how exactly is modern Greece and Byzantine Empire the "nationalistic link" that this encyclopedia worries about and try to do anything to prevent from be expressed?

Ottomans and Turkey? Was the Ottoman Empire even called itself Turkey in any official way? Cause apparently doesn't matter how was known and called by others...Didn the Ottoman Empire fallen? Why nobody argues about their cultural, religious and identity continuation from them? Its more direct because nobody conquered them for centuries? Isn the Neo Turkish nationalism and modern expansionistic ideology of Turkey based and justified by the existence of the Ottoman empire also a problem? Have this encyclopedia and its good people also tried to respond to these issues or again for some magical reason only Greece and the links with the Eastern Roman empire are the main problem and the most dangerous ideology? Why specifically Greeks, from all people in that region need to have their link with their medieval past much more fluid and nuanced and broken than the rest? Here...is the dishonesty from your justification about why this article is written in this way and I truly consider this approach over the modern Greeks hilariously similar to what Westerners have done to them in the medieval period about their rights to the Roman Imperium and how much all tried to make them less associated with it. So well done to that...continuing this tradition. VanMars (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

About the use of the name Greek Empire or simply Greece by the Europeans...you know very well that this term started since the 8th century and continued to be used traditionally by all Europeans (not just Westerners) till the 18th century.

-The Donation of Constantine (9th century AD), one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum", "Graecia", "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

-987 AD: Rus Primary Chronicle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle

"Behold, the Bulgars came before me urging me to accept their religion. Then came the Germans and praised their own faith; and after them came the Jews. Finally the Greeks appeared, criticising all other faiths but commanding their own, and they spoke at length, telling the history of the whole world from its beginning."

"Through your agency God turns the Rus land to repentance, and you will relieve Greece from the danger of grievous war. Do you not see how much evil the Russians have already brought upon the Greeks?"

-Wikipedia about the Greece Runestones

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_runestones

"The Greece runestones (Swedish: Greklandsstenarna) are about 30 runestones containing information related to voyages made by Norsemen to the Byzantine Empire. They were made during the Viking Age until about 1100 and were engraved in the Old Norse language with Scandinavian runes"

"On these runestones the word Grikkland ("Greece") appears in three inscriptions,[1] the word Grikk(j)ar ("Greeks") appears in 25 inscriptions,[2] two stones refer to men as grikkfari ("traveller to Greece")[3] and one stone refers to Grikkhafnir ("Greek harbours")."

Are you gonna change these articles now as well?

In the whole historiography of Europe before the 1800s the term Greeks and Greece or Greek Empire/Kingdom was used by all European people. No neighbour of Greeks except the Turks ever used another name for them or the medieval state of Eastern Rome. Thats is in all sources and living memory...

So how you gonna address this reality in the article of the Byzantine Empire? Solely that the name Greek Empire or Greece used solely by the Western Europeans and that solely in a malevolent way? In the same Wikipedia we see that Serbian and Bulgarian rulers took the title of Basileus of Bulgarians and Greeks or Serbians and Greeks etc...So if the term Greece was only used by people as a way to deny the rights to the roman imperium from the Byzantines, how and why Bulgarians and Serbians or Rus used it also but they tried to appropriate it in order to claim it via the name Greece and Greeks?

So here we have a huge ideological gap that your article is failing to address...The whole approach of course as you said is merely to de-linked Greece from that medieval past because "greek nationalism".

I find the whole behaviour devastating and sad. I would never imagine that by having the Byzantine History finally so popular will lead to such results...In fact the Byzantine history is interesting only if its explicitly Roman and the "greek thing" in it should be ostracized and expelled and minimised as possible.

Even in the beginning of the article when its says Common Languages, Latin takes precedence despite having Greek serving as official from the 7th century to the 15th century, despite being from most of the time the language of the overwhelming majority...still Latin mentioned first.

I'm not sure if its Greek nationalism the problem here honestly since even a medieval Roman or Byzantine or Byzantine Greek (call it as you like) would have expressed this obvious issues as well. VanMars (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, Greek nationalism is not the reason. But I am aware of the politics that exists in Greece and in the disapora that is pushing for this narrative.

The main reason, is that the consensus in the sources is to call this the Byzantine Empire, a continuation of the Roman state, when it was centred at Constantinople. If it had not become Christian, stopped speaking Latin, and held onto Rome after the 8th century, historians would have less debate and probably call this the Roman Empire still and never Greek or Byzantine. Calling it the Greek Empire was a western bias as you mentioned that was replaced with the term Byzantine in the 19th century as the new convention, which according to Kaldellis was due to the politics of the Megali Idea and the Crimean War. No one calls it a Greek empire today other than Greeks pursuing Irredentist politics.

It's an empire that many modern nations claim a link to, not just Greece. The 400 years that the Rum Millet existed in between 1453 and the Greek revolution is 400 reasons why we cannot say it's a direct political continuation that Greek historians have written. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey articles are split, even though there is academic debate that they are the same state and the difference between them is not 400 years.

Regarding your only point about the article's content, the language section. It's chronologically explaining the transition and in future we likely will reduce this section to cut word length by moving it to Languages of the Roman Empire but it's just not a priority right now as we are reviewing the article first before we update other articles and reduce the word count of this article. It does mention when Greek became official which is 534, an improvement made to this article this year backed by the sources. I'm not sure how we need to improve it given it's chronological, mentions when, and in future will be condense to one paragraph so will remove a lot of this latin detail that offends you.

Please be specific about changes you want to make to the article here, we are not a forum and your commentary may be deleted in future unless it's focused to improving the article. Please reflect on what Airship wrote which is using the viewpoints of reliable sources, not other wikipedia pages. Biz (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

As i said before there's some kind of dishonesty in your statements. Nationalism and irredentistic ideologies exist all across Europe and can be found in every single nation (not just in Europe). So judging the medieval Greek world as a non go for a connection to the modern Greek world (Greece and Cyprus) is somehow an extremity, as someone has to imagine that the link of modern Bulgaria to the medieval Bulgarian empire or Serbia to the medieval Serbian empire etc cannot bare the same dangers compared to what the link of the Byzantine empire and modern Greece & Cyprus can do. That's very one side view.

Greek irredentisms? Against whom? Turkey you mean probably...but I believe that the only reason for such irredentisms to exist today is only as a shield against the very much existing Turkish irredentisms and claims against Greece and Cyprus...which apparently are not seriously enough for you to take into a consideration and understand the whole picture.

Whatever that's modern politics that should not influence history...

What you mean there are many nations that claim a link to the Byzantine Empire? No there aren't. They are nations that understand that part of their culture and religion was heavily influenced by the Empire directly or indirectly...but there are no many nations that see their medieval selves as that people. Let's be honest here, the only living people that are directly see themselves to the Byzantines are the Greeks...either by language, religion, historical evolution, memory, names, territories and historical accounts. That's not debated. Why we need to debate this nowadays?

Are the Byzantine Greeks that fled to the West after the fall of Constantinople not legit "byzantines" anymore to see what they write about their state and people?

You say that the term "Greece" or "Greek empire" was just a western label that meant to take off the Roman heritage of the state but as I pointed out to you, that label was used by Eastern Europeans and Northmen alike and in all cases this label was not to make them seem less Roman but instead we have the use of the term Greek meaning exactly what Roman should mean in the context of legitimacy...and that fact, the whole Eastern European view is non existent in the article.

The Empire crossed centuries and evolved, there's no such argument as "if wasn't centred in Constantinople, if wasn't took Greek as official, if if if" to debate how the empire evolved and why it evolved like that. This is a very problematic stance and I don't believe we have seen such direct political and historical involvement from other people into the history of other people nowhere around the globe. So what makes the Greeks so dangerous? They are hardly 11 million people and definitely are not realistically a threat to anyone...I mean why the Byzantine empire is the focus to fight against Greek Nationalism when the ancient greek world which is admittedly and openly Greek is lies almost exactly at the same lands as the Byzantines? If Greek nationalism is a problem then how the Ancient Greek world is not? It doesn't make sense at all. So in the end is not the Greek Nationalism the problem neither that the Greeks *obviously* consider as their medieval past that Greek speaking and Greek Orthodox state with people living in their lands and having their same names as them and known as Greeks across the European continent! Is ridiculous to play that game cause it make no sense. So I'll argue for the sake of the argument that if the Byzantine Empire wasn't a legitimate Roman part with the emperors having a legitimate continuum in the Roman Imperium, nobody would ever argue that we are talking about a clear medieval Greece. So in the end the whole argument is only using as a façade the Greek Nationalism while in reality is exactly the same concept we have since the 800 AD...that this empire IF should be considered a legit Roman inheritor, and probably the only legit one, should never ever been associated with one people alone...Its its legacy and rights that is the problem and not any modern nationalism.

My point here is that what I see and read in your Wikipedia article about this Empire is exactly what latin states of the medieval period would have loved to be written about this empire. Its Greeknsess? Totally gone under the bass, as much less prominent the better, its Greek orthodoxy the same...more nuanced and fluid the better for everyone.

That article is a victory of all these that for centuries wanted this empire destroyed.

I know that you may think of me ill and that I'm some kind of greek nationalist and that my arguments are tiresome and I should just stop. And I cannot blame you for that...But I have to do my duty as my ancestors did, all the time to defend the world which we belong...because there's nobody else to do it. What I'm saying here and all these long texts are not a first but a traditional debate that any Greek speaker had to do across the centuries against some foreign authors or historians...

Thank you for being kind enough and reply back to me, my regards.

My name is Theodoros Argyropoulos. VanMars (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Θοδωρή, υπάρχουν πολλά σοβαρά ζητήματα, αλλά δεν είναι αυτό το μέρος. Με την ιστορία, πρέπει να αφήσουμε την περηφάνια μας κάπου αλλού και να τη γράψουμε με την αλήθεια. Keep the discussion here focused on sections you think need to be reevaluated, preferably with reliable sources, and I can take a look. Biz (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

we can say that the Greek era of this state starts either from the 700s in terms of the official language or from the 1200s in terms of consciousness. 46.103.5.131 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on what? The former is a common myth, the latter seems to be an original invention, and both constitute original research for a periodization. Remsense ‥ 论 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

there were many Greek terms such as Strategikon(Greek: Στρατηγικόν) and Gemistos Plethon speak for consciousness. 46.103.5.131 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's one bit of information that doesn't address the core point about original research. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Greek term Strategikon(Greek: Στρατηγικόν) was real and Gemistos Plethon speak for consciousness,according to Woodhouse, C.M.1986 and Makrides2009. 46.103.5.131 (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The aforementioned core point is that we are not at liberty to design our own periodizations. We may only use those that reliable sources have explicitly introduced; to do otherwise is original research. Remsense ‥ 论 00:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

are these sources not reliable? 46.103.5.131 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

They do not declare a "Greek era" as part of an explicit periodization of the Byzantine state: that is your own synthesis extrapolated from each work. (It should also be mentioned that Makrides 2009 is mainly a work of architectural history; we wouldn't be citing it for something general like this in any case) Remsense ‥ 论 00:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

was the term Greek(ελλην) for citizens, never used in the late Byzantine period (1261–1453 AD)? 46.103.5.131 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot define our own historiographical periodizations, even if they are based off of sourced information. The source itself has to state the periodization as such. Remsense ‥ 论 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Τhis is my opinion and surely this empire was changing. It was very different from the predecessor ancient Roman empire. 46.103.5.131 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, my point is we can't write anything in the article based on that. Remsense ‥ 论 01:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This policy has been completely misapplied. While it is true that historians (unfortunately but understandably) will keep using the term "Byzantine" to essentially refer to the post-Heraclian Roman Empire, and while it is true that historiographic consensus should be the decider about the *information* presented in the article, that doesn't mean that we should subject the broad public of students and common people to this confusing and absurd convention. It is the complete and clear consensus of the specialists that there is no significant discontinuity in ethnic and administrative identity between the "ancient" Eastern Roman empire and the "medieval" one. The only possible problematic context is those few centuries when the title of Roman Emperor was claimed by the Frankish and Germanic Kings in the West, before the "holy" became customary under Barbarossa. This article isn't here *for* professional historians, it's for everyone. We can make a difference and rectify this silly, confusing, and outdated idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxos parmensis (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"This article isn't here *for* professional historians, it's for everyone." exactly, which is why we go by what "everyone" calls it, not professional historians. See WP:COMMONNAME. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

In Section about First Crusade, add: Furthermore, Bohemond of Taranto's refusal to return Antioch to Byzantine control exemplified how the Crusaders’ ambitions often clashed with Byzantine interests, leading to a fractious relationship between the two factions and ultimately preventing the complete recovery of lost Byzantine lands Scamilosteez (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Continuation of Constantinopole

Eastern Roman Empire/ Byzantine Empire was not continuous from 330-1453, during sack of Constantinopole in 1204 Byzantine Empire/ Eastern Roman Empire didn't exist anymore and lost the capital of Constantinopole. The succesor states Despotate of Trebizond, Despotate of Epirus and Empire of Nicea claimed to be it's succesor but they weren't they didn't even have Constanopole which was under Latin Empire. In the Wikipedia article of Western Roman Empire it is clearly mentioned that it changed it's capital but here it doesn't mention that Constantinopole was not continuous and wasn't permanently under Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire control due to Latin Empire and sack of Constantinople in 1204 by crusader/Latin forces. 86.124.126.204 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Is your maximum reading limit three paragraphs, or something? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This information is crucial for understanding what set the Byzantines apart from the rest of the world and should be included in the lead to emphasize their uniqueness

@AirshipJungleman29

I would add it summarized like this:

"Compared to medieval Western Europe, Byzantium was highly advanced, with larger cities, higher literacy rates, and a more diverse, monetized economy. It also had efficient governance and a well-educated bureaucracy that was small but effective."

Source: http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/persistence-byzantium Itisme3248 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, obviously adding closely-paraphrased material to any article is a no-no on Wikipedia. Ignoring that, could you please provide a source for "this information is crucial for understanding what set the Byzantines apart from the rest of the world", preferably sourced to a number of highly-regarded historians? The part of WP:LEAD that promotes "emphasizing uniqueness" would also be useful. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Like you've been told several times, the article lead is a summary of the body. The degree to which we cover these aspects in the lead should be proportional to their coverage in the body. Byzantine Empire § Science and medicine is presently 500 words out of the total 15,000. To give it its own paragraph in the lead is thus clearly disproportionate: you can argue it should have a greater representation in the body, but the biggest problem at the moment is slimming down this article, so that would likely be the process. In any case, there's already a section and even a dedicated Byzantine science article, so there's little substantive argument why unless your perception isn't weighing the whole picture. Remsense ‥ 论 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I think it's important to highlight what made Byzantium stand out right from the start of the article. The lead is supposed to set the stage for the reader and emphasize the most significant aspects of the topic. Compared to medieval Western Europe, Byzantium was way ahead in terms of urbanization, literacy rates, economic sophistication, and even its governance. These aren't just minor details, they're fundamental to understanding what made Byzantium unique and why it played such a crucial role in bridging the ancient and medieval worlds.

I know there's a concern about the proportion of the lead compared to the rest of the article, but this isn't just about science and medicine. It's about painting a full picture of Byzantium's role as a highly developed society in a time when much of Europe was far less advanced. Sure, there's already a section on science, but this is bigger than that, it’s about setting the context for the Empire's overall influence. It feels like if we want the lead to accurately reflect what makes Byzantium historically significant, these points should have more prominence, even if it means expanding their coverage in the body later.

Let’s not forget that the lead is often all a reader might look at, and giving them a clear sense of what made Byzantium unique helps them understand the Empire's place in history right away. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"During most of its existence, the empire was the dominant economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean, with larger cities, higher literacy rates, a diverse, monetized economy, efficient governance, and a well-educated bureaucracy that was small but effective, setting it apart from medieval Western Europe."

I think it can be added on the first paragraph, on the part it already talks about its advanced economy and culture Itisme3248 (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone agree to expand that part into this? Itisme3248 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's possible there should be a sentence to this effect somewhere, but this particular phrasing seems like editorializing on your part. Did you try summarizing what the article actually says weighted for how it is said (as is required, I reiterate) or did you write that based on nothing in particular? Remsense ‥ 论 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This is literally said in the article, it is not my invention

"Nevertheless, by medieval standards, and in some respects by ancient ones as well, Byzantium was an advanced society. Its cities were larger, its literacy rates higher, and its economy more monetarized and diversified than those of medieval Western Europe, at least up to the 13th century. By comparison with most ancient empires, including Rome, Byzantium was well governed. Our ideas of "Byzantine bureaucracy" to the contrary, Byzantium was blessed with a cadre of officials that was generally efficient, well educated, well paid, and relatively small in number--perhaps 2,500 in the central bureaucracy toward the beginning of the empire's history, and around 600 by the ninth century." Itisme3248 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting as an addition? I assume you'd like a sentence or phrase about science and technology to represent the corresponding section, which I think is reasonable, but there's no reason I see we need to quote Treadgold in particular here. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend modifying the first paragraph in the lead where it currently states:

"During most of its existence, the empire remained the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean world."

To:

"During most of its existence, the empire was the dominant economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean, with larger cities, higher literacy rates, a diverse, monetized economy, efficient governance, and a well-educated bureaucracy that was small but effective, setting it apart from medieval Western Europe." Itisme3248 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, please don't suggest plagiarism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Is using the word "and" also plagiarism because the source used it? Itisme3248 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect you know the answer. In any case, please see the page on close paraphrasing, which you may have missed above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to bold for emphasis, as I am fully literate.

To be blunt, it's not up to you (or me) to decide what's important for readers—it's not our place to emphasize our favorite aspects or what we particularly think is special to readers. That is up to our body of sources, whose representation we balance in the article; we then summarize the article in the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 23:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

امپراتوری بیزانس به یونان و اسپارتا حمله می کند و زنان آن را کنیز و مردان را می کشد

امپراتوری بیزانس به یونان و اسپارتا حمله میکند. زنان را به اسارت و مردان را میکشد 5.126.146.233 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Translation: "The Byzantine Empire invades Greece and Sparta, enslaving its women and killing its men".

??? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Use of WP:LLMs is equivalent to original research; in any case, the material duplicates the literal next section"

I used LLM to structure the text i've written better, i did not use LLM to do research. That is a completely different thing. "phrase and structure my text better while being loyal to my text" Is what i prompted the LLM. Next time read the book before accusing people of doing original research Itisme3248 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And i obviously checked for hallunications. All the LLM did was phrase my text better and more clearly. @AirshipJungleman29. Itisme3248 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You say "i obviously checked for hallucinations". You did not. The entire sentence "For them, studying, expanding upon, and reinterpreting the works of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle was a part of everyday intellectual life, leading to new developments in philosophy and science that were later transmitted to the Italian Renaissance." is not supported by the source. What checks did you do?

To be blunt, if you can't figure out how to summarise one single page of a reliable source in a structured manner, I don't trust you to tell me what clear text actually is—which makes sense, because your additions are repetitive and clunky (and that's without mentioning the duplication). You seriously think 190 words is "a summary" of two paragraphs totalling 290 words? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not summarizing a single page, i was summarizing multiple pages from the book. Go read the actual book before jumping on conclusions. "is not supported by the source". Thanks for the evidence that you haven't read the source. Itisme3248 (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

" "i obviously checked for hallucinations". You did not. The entire sentence"

Do you realize that i literally wanted that added in because the book was claiming that? Itisme3248 (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a look at this diff, Itisme3248. Do you see "pages=63"? For most people, that means you are citing page 63. If you were "summarising multiple pages from the book", you clearly failed to check for errors in your "AI-generated text" which "only phrased the text better". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph:

• "Byzantine scholars, such as Georgios Gemistos Plethon, were instrumental in reintroducing Greek philosophical ideas to the West. During the Council of Florence in 1438–1439, Plethon's lectures on the differences between Plato and Aristotle had a profound impact on the intellectual climate in Florence and he inspired Cosimo de' Medici to establish the Platonic Academy in Florence, which became a key center for Renaissance thought."

The Cosimo and Platonic Academy of Florence is disproved by "Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture, Wouter J. Hanegraaff, page 41, "This attractive story has been repeated by nearly every scholar who has written on the revivial of platonism in Renaissance Florence until 1990, when it was exploded as a typical case of mnemohistorical fiction by the researches of James Hankins." Clearly what has been added is WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And what is the author's argument to why it's fiction? You can't just quote "its fiction" without the author having an argument to why.

"We know that the manuscript of the complete works of Plato which Marsilius Ficino later used in his translation had been acquired by Cosimo dei Medici at the time of the Council. He then put it at the disposal of Ficino, who, in the preface to his Commentaries on Plotinus of 1490, claimed that Cosimo in 1439, under the influence of the Greeks, especially Plethon, had envisaged the creation of a Platonic Academy in Florence. The very existence of such an academy is nowadays contested and the meeting between Cosimo and Plethon is also conjectural" page 568 Itisme3248 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The very existence of such an academy is nowadays contested and the meeting between Cosimo and Plethon is also conjectural."

Which further proves my point.

• "You can't just quote "its fiction" without the author having an argument to why."

Actually, I can. It's called quoting from a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, please provide a quote for Classical Scholarship: The Byzantine Contribution, Eleanor Dickey, "The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium", ed. Anthony Kaldellis and Niketas Siniossoglou, page 63.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Byzantine Map replacement

I think we should change the Tataryn's map because it's too simplified even for an article map. This simplification led to a great deal of misunderstanding about the extent of the Byzantine Empire at the time. A more detailed map will better represent the complexity of the political situation in the empire (Both Internal and External). Especially in regions such as Mauritania and Sardinia. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your proposed map is sourced to other images on WP, which is an immediate concern because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The first one I clicked on purported to depict the Exarchate of Africa in 600; can you please explain how, even it is completely reliable, it functions as a source for the Empire's boundaries 45 years earlier? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the Exarchate of Africa and the Praetorian Prefecture of Africa share the same boundaries, some sources claim that Heraclius expanded the exarchate. However, these sources are few so I chose to depict the boundaries without those conquests, matching the ones 45 years earlier. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also for the sources, if you want i can share you the exact ones, i only used the ones present on wikipedia directly for convenience Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So you have access to academic sources, but for some reason you decided to use other images as sources instead, and make your own judgements on what happened over time? Please do share these sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

its because those images use the same academic sources I used? also, the mauretania region is quite obscure, so I doubt a definitive claim can be made. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to correct myself regarding the African boundary; what I meant to reference was the war with the Kingdom of Altava in 579, not an expansion by Heraclius. By then, the borders remained unchanged. After the war, there are three main theories: total annexation, partial annexation, or no border changes at all.

References:

Denys Pringle: The Defence of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab Conquest, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford 1981 (reprint 2001), ISBN 0-86054-119-3, p. 41, referencing 578, and Susan Raven: Rome in Africa, 3rd edition, Routledge, London, ISBN 0-415-08150-5, p. 220, referencing 579.

Averil Cameron: Vandal and Byzantine Africa. In: Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby (eds.): The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 14: Late Antiquity. Empire and Successors. AD 425–600, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000, ISBN 0-521-32591-9, p. 561.

I decided to depict the border as unchanged due to the lack of forts and general sources on Byzantine expansion in the vicinity of Altava. Apologies for the error, i will patiently await your reply. Shuaaa2 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how Pringle supports the border, and the only map I see in Cameron depicts the border as much less intricate. Does Raven support the carve-outs for Capsa and Dorsale? I would have thought they would have been conquered in the Vandalic War. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

you misunderstand me, the references i used specifically for the war with altava, for capsa and dorsale i utilized this Christian Curtois' "Les Vandales et l'Afrique/"Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa" by A.H. Merrills. Originally it is from Christian Curtois' Shuaaa2 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Page number? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

page 334 - 335 for Les Vandales et l'Afrique, if you want i can send you the pdf file link, the 2 pages explain the general political situation and shows a map of the boundaries of each Berber Kingdom, since its in french here's a translation

THE BERBER KINGDOMS IN THE 5TH AND 6TH CENTURIES

Map: 1. Kingdom of Altava (Lamoricière); 2. Kingdom of Ouarsenis; 3. Kingdom of Hodna; 4. Kingdom of Aurès; 5. Kingdom of Nememcha; 6. Kingdom of Capsa; 7. Kingdom of Dara; 8. Kingdom of Chenini.

From an inscription in Altava (Lamoricière), which has already been discussed several times and which informs us that in the year 574 it still recognized the authority of a king called Masuna, who bore the titles of Mauretanian and Romanorum, it can be inferred that the authority of this king extended over Altava, Safar, and Castra Severiana. These last agglomerations escape us, to the point that identifying them is quite difficult; one might suppose that Castra Severiana was on the outskirts of this region. But Altava, as known by Procopius, is located near the Roman frontier, 25 kilometers from the sea, near Tlemcen.

There is no difficulty in locating the kingdom of Masuna, and the inscription from Altava (Aïn Ternouch) mentions his prefect Solaym, who could be the leader of a district that extended up to the sea. One might assume that a kind of Roman prefecture formed around Altava and could be explained as a military protection area in the north against the south. Consequently, it is quite probable that the dominance of this kingdom must have extended over the steppes of the High Plains. But this is pure supposition, as we cannot find traces beyond the foothills of the Aurès. We must conclude that the subordination to the Byzantines extended no further than the Aurès.

If we look at this general assumption, it is for the reason cited by Procopius, who made this same observation about Maurus (Maur), son of the Masuna of Altava, and who claims that Maurus, son of a certain Mephanius, played a decisive role in 508. As a consequence, Mephanius seems to have replaced the previous king at that time. Procopius says that Mephanius, by means of slavery to the Byzantines, tried to stay in the leadership position for a long time, which suggests that Masuna, his predecessor, may have had resentment that fueled his hatred of the Romans. The two other regions, whose borders are hard to fix exactly, show a considerable power contrast. Masuna’s power was indisputable, and we must grant his kingdom considerable influence that extended over the steppe.

On the other hand, twenty-eight years separate the inscriptions of Procopius from those of Altava. It is necessary to admit that we should take the life of Mephanius into account, as he replaced Masuna before the year 508. However, we should not exaggerate the coincidence of events related to the Aurès, as the inscriptions suggest. It is clear from these facts that in Altava, Mephanius had long managed to be the leader of Byzantine affairs, and thus it is even more likely that the kingdom of Masuna must have extended over the same boundaries in this earlier period.

FORGOTTEN AFRICA

"It is indeed a great misfortune for a country to be poorly supported when empires are no longer stable," wrote R. de Blanche, and this misfortune is even greater than the Hypothèse would allow us to imagine. Let us not forget that, thanks to the Holy War, and after several centuries of Arab invasions, the entire region of the High Plains, once very fertile, was entirely devastated. Evidence shows that the destruction of the Castellum Altaua by the sedentary populations was highly probable, making it almost certain that this Berber kingdom extended along the borders of the steppe.

Another point, twenty-eight years separate the information given by Procopius from that of Altava’s inscription. In 508, Masuna is explicitly mentioned in the inscription. However, it must be acknowledged that he was the son of a certain Mephanius, who had replaced him during this period, and as mentioned in SOS, it appears that Mephanius replaced Masuna externally but belonged to the same family as Diodore. As a result, Masuna retained control over the region for a significant period. Moreover, we must consider that Masuna left his deep-seated resentment towards Rome in memory of its harmful rule, which indicates his hatred for Rome, an entirely understandable feeling considering the mental cruelty he had suffered. Thus, to ascribe a significant degree of power to the kingdom of Masuna is simply undeniable.

Apologies if i responded late, when we were discussing it was late at night Shuaaa2 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

just in case, the borders shown here are the exact ones as shown in the book: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_depicting_the_Romano-Berber_Kingdoms.png Shuaaa2 (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you reading what you're quoting? Both of these excerpts are about Masuna, not Dorsale and/or Capsa.

Dorsale's existence is dubious, as mentioned in Encyclopédie berbère, Volume 5:

Quant au «royaume de la Dorsale», il est difficile de croire à son existence. En fait, les Byzantins, et vraisemblablement avant eux les Vandales, traitaient les chefs berbères comme l'empereur romain avait traité les chefs germains, en foederati, établis dans l'Empire. Ce n'est qu'en Maurétanie, province abandonnée à son destin depuis un siècle, qu'un véritable royaume put se constituer et durer jusqu'à la conquête arabe. (pg 707)

That "véritable royaume" being mentioned in the quote above is Masuna, which was never the subject. Antalas, the ""king"" of Dorsale had been a subject of the Byzantines since the start of the Vandalic War, but later rebelled in 543 AD after the killing of many chiefs by the "dux" of Tripolitania, Sergius. The details are more fleshed out on pg 99 of Mattingly's The Laguatan: A Libyan Tribal Confederation in the Late Roman Empire from Cambridge's Libyan Studies, Volume 14. The rebellion was defeated in 548 AD & the situation reverted back to the status quo (ie, Byzantine subjugation).

As far as Capsa is concerned, the city itself was, for a time, the capital of the renewed province of Byzacena. Even more so, the name of the city was renamed to "Capsa-Justiniana" in 540 AD. Whether or not the Berbers held some outlying areas is questionable & frankly not worth investigating considering the geopolitical capital of the area is very clearly under the Byzantines.

It goes without saying that neither of these polities should make an appearance on the map, considering the intention is to show the apex of the Byzantine Empire. OxSpace (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right, i also have recently read other sources on the area that showed that the Byzantines did control the area, so i apologize for the mistake. Shuaaa2 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

also, i updated the source tab in my byzantine empire map, take a look and tell me if you feel its satisfactory https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_-_AD_555.png Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Better. I don't think we need the prefectures on the map—they just provide detail of the divisions for a tiny fraction of the empire's history. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well i could remove them but i do believe they were a major part of the Byzantine Empire's administration and thus should be shown, but tell me and i'll remove them, perhaps i could divide it into 2 maps, one of the main infobox and one showing the administrative divisions for below the article Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

They were a major part of the administration yes ... but not for very long. Obviously, Italy was reconquered in around a dozen years, but Africa and the Orient largely fell in a century, and Illyricum was reorganised with the rest of the themes.

Honestly, I'm not even sure why a map of Justinian's empire is appropriate for the lead. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, it should be "representative" of the article subject, and Justinian's territories are about as unrepresentative as you can get. Far more appropriate would be a map from between the 800s and 1000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe there's a reason to show t justinian's conquests, similar to how the Roman Empire article displayed its greatest extent in 117. one approach I could take is to use the same purple color for the pre-conquest territory and a lighter shade for the later conquests, along with labels indicating the dates of annexation

tell me what do you think about this Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

also apologies for the sloppy writing, I am quite tired Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

i made another map this time more simplified, could this fit on the article?: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_-_AD_395_to_568.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I like this. That said, I’d love to see it for a longer time period, either showing when territory was lost or as additional maps when territory was regained like in the subsequent conquest period of the Macedonian dynasty.

It was a very different world in the middle period with competing states so that’s another way it could be represented in a different map. A third thought is to show all territory it controlled but by time period (ie, you put a date range for different shaded regions). Biz (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

that is hard to do but ill try in the upcoming days Shuaaa2 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

the only issue its hard showing both expansion and shrinkage so idk really how i could show them both, if you or anyone has any tips id be greatful Shuaaa2 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is a hard request, we appreciate you exploring this.

Another approach to consider and that would simplify is to use three periods and therefore three shades of maximum territorial extent. The darker the shade, the longer the territory was held across the three periods.

They could be Early (330–717). Middle (717–1204) and Late (1204–1453). So your existing work would simply be one shade as 'early', the Macedonian reconquest up to 1015 when it was was at its peak would be the shade for Middle.

The late period is a bit more complicated due to all the rump states, but the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261 and sometime by 1282 with the reconquests of Michael VIII Palaiologos would probably be the maximum extent in the late era. Biz (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

alright, thank you for your advice, i'll see to it in the upcoming days to make the map Shuaaa2 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ive been working on the map but ive been quite busy recently so i expect it to be finished in a week or so Shuaaa2 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_395_to_1262.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D

Finished, do tell if it satisfactory for the article. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this, it's excellent. Reflecting on it, the four-tone of a similar colour make it hard to interpret without really looking a this for a while which is not great. I've not validated your research in the above mentioned sources, but I assume you are correct as it looks roughly correct but makes me uneasy without someone else confirming.

Given your original intention was to show the Empire in its maximal extent, and given our narrative of this history discusses three periods of conquest and expansion that occurred in the early, middle and late eras, I think it's best to have only three distinctive colours to reflect the three periods and when the territory was at its maximum extent in each period. Doing this also makes a complete map of the Empire's existence.

I like how you demarcate when borders and territory were acquired, lost, or changed. But it needs consistency. Either only use the dates it was acquired, or put the dates it was held (ie, a range), or only the dates it was permanently lost. It's confusing using more than one, even though you label some of them (ie, when lost) Biz (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for WP MOS:ACCESSIBILITY takes a higher priority than just good looks, so a more distinct colour scheme and a larger key would be an improvement. Otherwise, really nice job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've compared the map to Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire and there are differences. We want multiple sources but at minimum it should match this book as it's the most recent scholarship.

Page xixv: 390s. this seems to align to your map and best for origin borders. All historians rely on the Notitia Dignitatum for this period so as long as we match this we are good.

Page xv: 565. This is the best map to align to for the early period, as Kaldellis says on p.296 the government was at its peak in the decade before 572. Slight differences to what you have.

Page xix: 1054. This is the best map to align to for middle period as it also times with the end of the Macedonian dynasty and before the loss of territory.

page xxiii: 1282. This map is the best one to align to for the late period as it's the end of the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos, who expanded and lost no territory during his reign, and which unraveled after. Slight differences to what you have.

Also with the borders, only if this is not too noisy, but try to unify them as contiguous like how Kaldellis did, as the navy was a big part of the East so it's fair to say the state had a presence in the water up until the navy's disbandment in 1284. Given you are shading the map for maximal territory, you could have just the one border which is the origin one in 395 of the East or both East/West (which will contrast nicely with extension made in 565; if you only do the East origin borders, you don't need to do as many sea borders) or you could use the border from 565 to show the maximal extent in its entire history (but this is also redundant as the shading shows this as well). Trying to do multiple periods of borders can get confusing, so one border but different shades achieve the same purpose. In summary, my recommendation overall is an origin border of the overall Roman Empire distinguishing east and west boundaries, three distinctive shades for peak labelled as Early (330-717), Middle (717-1204) and Late (1204-1453). I do like how you use years territory lost due to the Arab invasions but then you need extend this to all areas, so maybe try the above first and then we can see if it makes sense. Biz (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Shuaaa2 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)