Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 1

193:

they lacked sensitivity on internal problems aroused within the 12th and 13th century. The rise of the byzantine aristocracy and the subsequent suppression of the weak independent farmers brought a huge decline in the empire's incomes as well as an unjustifyable increase of expenditures related to the luxurious lifestyle of the newly created aristocracy and the royal court. The Byzantine Empire for the first time faced so critical economic problems. The small independent farmers were the lifeblood of the empire providing I/food for the urban population II/gold to the royal coffins III/men to the imperial army and navy and most importantly - IV/ by inhabiting the eastern extremes of the empire (Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia) they were acting like a live shield to the expansion of the islamic populations. The emperors after Basil the BulgarSlayer were mostly people coming form the very rich aristocracy of Asia Minor (Aggeloi, Dukes) and as a result they defendended the privileges of their class against the poor. At the same historic period the feudarchy invaded the Byzantine Empire, from the west with the land being separated to large family feuds and local rulers (doux), independent from a strong central authority, which was the emperor. Manuel himself is characterised as a knight-emperor according to the western customs. This rulers were not easily controlable and oftenly acted against the wide interests of the empire. They were not paying taxes to the royal coffins and their local blood-sucking policies drove the agricultural production to a nadir. As now the smaller farmers were fallen into a populous class of miserable plebes the army started increasingly to recruit foreign mercenaries and ex-crusaders. These people did not have the pride to defend the empire against the islamic hordes. They only cared about gold, and when gold run out the empire fallen. It was the first time that the empire had to rely on foreign mercenaries and not on locally recruited tactical army. Byzantine infantry the most basic tactical group of the byzantine army was a projection of the roman legions of the early republican years (2nd and 1st century BC). Their capacity based on their pride and faith had been proven numerous times in the past. After the 12th century the byzantine infantry became a second tier tactical group not properly equipped and comprised of miserable prideless plebes.I hope these factors mentioned here answer some of your questions to a certain extend.

6147:"Its my belief that were heating over this with a concept that wasn't quite the same 600 years ago, that of Nationalism. The Byzantine Empire was not a single ethnic group, it, much like the Roman empire, might of been rulled by a class dominated by a majority from a single ethnic group, but it did not mean that every one was from that group. Nor might it of even been all that important as we've seen Armanians, Macedonians, etc take the rulling title. Similarly speaking greek didn't make then automaticly greek, convinience made it the official language, just like english in India. Being located near the great centers of hellenes culture and having it as such an integral part of the state surely did homogenize the heterogenous groups. Much like the Soviet Union having Russian language and Russian culture as the state's practice, yet it still hade a multitude of people wheren't ethnicly Russian, nor where they immigrants. As an Empire that lasted centuries independendly from the rest of the Old Roman Empire and a contignuation of its practices, I find it hard to pin point the Byzantines as this or that. There is no clear cut line of anything with the Byzantine as things evolved, like all states do." Now the above part of my post was supposed to be posted some time ago but looks like things have heated up and what I've written mostly inconcequential. But I took the time to write it and by gods I`ll post it, even if I no longer have the time to word it correctly. Now on to something thats been bothering me: "And finally, the Byzantine elite did end up recognising itself as "Hellenic"" If this was only later, than it shouldn't bee used on the whole of the history (something adumbrated in my first paragraph). This is where that compremise term Byzantine comes in handy, its neither against nor for Empire of the Hellenes/Romans. 6688:

medieval Roman Empire (implied political continuity to the Roman state) was the cultural continuation of the Hellenistic World, and points out how it was viewed by its contermporaries. This is extremely important to point out if you take into consideration the other states that would claim political and cultural continuity from the Roman Empire. There had been a heated debate in the middle ages as to who is the heir to the Roman Empire and Rome finally favoured the Frankish emperor. The Byzantine emperor was given the humiliating title "Emperor of the Greeks" and the "Emperor of the Romans" lost forever official connection to Constantinople. This fact alone proves that the Roman continuity from Roman antiquity to medieval Byzantium was never as a simple matter as you present it. Hence the only POV I see here is your persistence on doing it "your way". In other words, most scholars today as well as back in the day, regard by default Roman=Latin. That might be 100% wrong, as it might be the use of "Byzantine" over plain "Roman". However that's how it is, and whether you like it or not wikipedia is obliged to use the established terminology and definitions. You were already wrong about Byzantine studies being an strictly an independent subject in universities. The political continuity from Rome was never put into question, and Rome itself had a great Hellenistic heritage. However cultural elements such as the Greek language are what make the difference between the East and the West. What if I find more sources that acknowledge the cultural continuity between Byzantium and the Hellenistic World? Will you be convinced then that it's a "POV" worth mentioning?

2887:

or ERE, but it still doesn't change Historical Fact, the Empire wasn't Latin, so it certainly wasn't Roman in the 'Traditional' sense that most think of, thats why we refer to the inhabitants (Greeks) as Byzantines, because there was such a sea change in every aspect of The Empire, right up to the dominant population. This NPOV is so pathetic, anyone can use it as an excuse for editing, granted, I haven't read as much as some of the more knowledgable people on these forums, but thats because I am 16 years old, but from what I have read - The Empire wasn't just dominantly Greek, it was Greek full stop. Should we also give equal coverage to Global Warming denialists just because it happens to be an opinion (disregarding the fact 99% of all climatologists consider their claims totally erroneus). Lets get one thing straight, the Empire wasn't Latin, it wasn't Albanian, it wasn't Armenian, it was Greek, lets just put down Historical fact ffs! Instead of pandering to everyones demands to always attribute someone elses history to their own. Same with the Alexander question, I haven't seen one god damn person mention that the first slavs to enter The Balkans came in 555AD, which makes their claim upon Alexander utterly fradulent, no.... we've got to *give* them equal coverage as if their claims are backed up by ANY kind of Historical fact. Actually, if that's the case, why doesn't somebody go and devote half of the Holocaust page to revisionist theories? We all know *that* wouldn't happen, but it's perfectly alright for others to attribute Greek History as their own, angry Italians, Albanians and even Bulgarians!

2359:

had existed within the Empire in order to determine its ethnicity. The medieval "Greek nation" or "Greek people" would refer to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire who recognised themselves as Romans. Colossus is right on this one, a "nation-state" is a modern term, but a "nation" (ethnos) of people is a very ancient one. Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century. We've already been using a term which was unknown to the "Greco-Romans" (Byzantines), because scholars thought it was necessary to make a distinction between Roman and Medieval Greek history. I'm sure that if the crusade of 1204 caused some a big change to the ethnic or cultural character of the Empire, scholars would have invented another term to describe the period of Palaeologus (Hellenic Empire?). By calling the Byzantine Empire a "Greek-speaking Empire" it's like implying "they were not really Romans as they claimed in the beginning, so we call them Byzantines, but they were neither really Greeks as they claimed at the end, so we call them Greek-speaking". I really don't see the logic in that, especially when in Ostrogorsky's own words (who is quoted in your sources)

5401:

it does not mean that because something changes ipso facto it is not called the same as it was before. The problem we have with identifying the Byzantines is Romans is that they do not meet our conception of what Romans should be, but that doesn't mean that they weren't Romans. All it means is that what it meant to be a Roman and what made up the Roman empire had changed. The Hellenisation of the eastern empire is completely in accordance with this process (although the eastern half of the empire was historically more Greek anyway). Runciman in his short volume on the crusades compared the Roman empire to the US today - they were both very good at making newcomers into full citizens. The US is a nation of immigrants and you will often find people proud of both their ethnic origin and at the same time proud to be American. The Roman empire was similar in turning various nationalities into its citizens. That's why it is possible to have an ethnic Greek who is also avowedly Roman. And don't forget that Greece had been Roman for well over 400 years by the time that the split in the empire occurred definitively. As for your examples I think the case of China and Taiwan is perhaps closer to the mark. Both the Peoples Republic and Taiwan claim to be China and most countries recognise the claim of one and refuse the other; but the people in both states are no less Chinese for the refusal of other states to recognise them.

6797:, the philhellene. Then after everyone realised that the Byzantine Empire was not the unimportant, schismatic, corrupted medieval Greece that they once sought to destroy, they started treating it with more respect. And if Britain hadn't decided to use the Greek army as its proxy in the Anatolian front, western Anatolia and Constantinople would have been parts of the Greek state today, and none of this talk would ever take place. Of course what's done is done and cannot be undone, but it's always funny to point out the irony. What we can do now is at least mention the unbiased truth about this medieval state as it is mentioned in the most credible of sources that Roydosan keeps referring to as "POV". Roydosan you seem to be stuck in the first centuries after the foundation of Constantinople, which are about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. By the time of Saint Constantine there's a proper Roman Empire with two capitals, not a Byzantine Empire. Theodosius the Great separates the empire into East and West and Anastasius rules over a sole Eastern Empire, but it's not until Heraclius that we speak of a "Byzantine Empire" as the "Medieval Greek Empire", which by the way is Ostrogorsky's term not mine, and whether you like it or not it is in use by scholars today. To quote from Ostrogorsky: 1257:

Slavic settlers kept coming in. Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians? What about the Isaurian mountain folk? What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? What about the predecessors of the Albanians? Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed? I am a great admirer of the medieval Greeks--in other new interpolations I exerted myself to refute the unfair prejudices and stereotypes about them that for too many centuries dominated scholarship on this subject. But the paragraph on Byzantine identity as it stands seems to be an exaggeration of the facts. Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert. Unless the point about the Greek identity of the "Balkans" etc. can be substantiated by scholarship, I think the text should either be restored or something entirely new should be added by someone who has the scholarly foundation in Byzantinism that I sadly lack.

6561:

came up with. It explicitely mentioned that the Byzantine Empire was the "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" and that its roalty indentified itself Roman. All I did was to point out that the Empire had a direct cultural connection to the Hellenistic world. This does by no means distort the idea of the continuation of the Roman Empire. It only adds important information which explains more about the nature of this medieval state and its people, who ironically viewed the Latins of Rome as their worst enemy. You can't just monopolise the Roman heritage by claiming that it was all about Byzantium. The city of Rome, the other Italian city-states, not to mention the Holy Roman Empire had a great part in the Roman heritage. If Rome and Byzantium were exactly the same thing, then we wouldn't be using different names for them. Having said that, I don't know what are you complaining about. Byzantine history and identity did begin with the Christianisation of Rome and the foundation of New Rome, the Byzantine state itself was never directly founded by somebody, and the early Byzantine culture was continuation of Hellenistic culture. Do you dispute the factual accurracy of those claims or do you think they're not important enough to be mentioned in the head?

6554:

century. The Greeks were not likely to attract assistance if the Western peoples thought of Greeks as Byzantines. However, if the Greeks were imagined as the children of Plato and Pericles, then the sympathies of educated Westerners, steeped in the Classical tradition, would be with Greece. In the Greek Revolution of 1832, the "Philhellenic" sympathies of Britain and other European governments were deeply engaged. Intervention on behalf of Greek independence proved decisive. The name of "Hellene" was revived in order to create a national image which rejected the "Byzantine" past. The names by which things are called are important in shaping our interpretation of reality. People are often surprised to discover that historical labels which define the past are inventions of later scholarship and ideology, not parts of the past itself. Men and women of the Middle Ages did not know that they lived in the Middle Ages: people who lived in Classical Athens or Renaissance Italy suffered the same disability. The people of the "Byzantine Empire" had no idea that they were Byzantine. They regarded themselves as the authentic continuators of the Roman world: the Romans living in Romania.

3037:"that crap"??? The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves ROMANS. The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc. However, it would have been an insult for a Byzantine to be called Byzantine. A Greek should tell you. I am not one but I take serious insult if somebody changes the translation of the OFFICIAL name in the infobox, which is EMPIRE OF THE ROMANS, because I am an Orthodox Christian and a Romanian. Now the words "that crap" are seriously offensive, especially because you made no effort to learn about the HISTORICAL significance of the words and you just took a dictionary and translated the greek word. The dictionary obviously was biased. It is like instead of saying to a Russian: "You come from a Slavic people" (because Russians are a part of the group of peoples known as Slavs) "You come from a slave people." 5988:

section on classifying Byzantium under "Hellenology" is almost a direct claim from Ostrogorsky, which concerns historiography. Unless of course you regard one of the greatest Byzantinologists as a "non-serious" scholar, then you have no case. Whether one regards this information important enough or not to be in the head is a matter of personal opinion. What I whole-heartedly consider important enough to be in the head is the fact that Byzantium was a direct continuation of the Hellenistic world (pretty much common knowledge, stated in the Oxford history of Byzantium). Someone who is not familiar with medieval history can easily understand how a Greek-speaking Roman Empire, inhabited by Greeks was suddenly created in that part of the world. To the very same reader it would seem confusing to speak about "THE medieval Roman Empire" while he has learned in school that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the late 5th century AD. I think the empire's Greekness or Greek identity should be sorted out in the body not in the head. Those claims about some guy chatting to Attila and calling himself a "Graikos" are in my opinion not very important.

4745:

the time assimilated to Islam). It really is a complicated subject as the Byzantines themselves (even the pre-Heraclian dynasties) were not as naive to believe that all Romans had migrated to the Eastern part and taken up the Greek language. They main ethnic distinction was "Greeks vs Latins" both of which could boast on a Roman past, but only the former could have claims on the Imperial throne. Then again there's always the religious question. According to medieval accounts of church-disputes, the "Greco-Romans" did not consinder themselves the ancestors of those "Latin-Romans" who had crusified Christ (and were therefore condemned); they would thus justify the superiority of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of the Westeners, at least by the time of the crusades, the Byzantines were viewed as schismatic, modern Greeks who ruled over a corrupted, Oriental Empire. One of the leaders of the fourth crusade (I think Dandolo) reacted to Prince's Alexius' proposal by saying "We don't want Greeks bearing their gifts", drawing a parallel between the Byzantines and the Mycenaeans of the

4634:

east contended with the Islamic powers for control of the Holy Land; in the west, Italian traders generated wealth within the empire, but they also created political tensions in Constantinople; in western europe, the Papacy and the crusades which it directed through Byzantine lands forced difficult choices on the emperor - the crusades presented dangers as well as opportunities to Byzantium. The Turks, meanwhile, were a constant hastle, raiding in Asia Minor and disrupting the frontier. Byzantine armies were still powerful and efficient, and the fleet was large and competant. As for the frontiers, in the west the postion had improved enormously. The Danube provided the empire with a new and naturally defensible frontier, while enclosing an enormous swath of new territory. Meanwhile, the landwalls of Constantinople were still as strong as ever. However in Asia Minor the frontier was longer and more vulnerable than it had been, though it still enclosed the richest and most populous territories as well as all the ports and trade posts.

6490:

the subject is often categorised under Hellenic studies, that's just a fact which you characterised as the "prism of Greek nationalism". I don't see why we should mislead the reader into believing that some multi-ethnic Roman people has built a 2206 year-old Empire which started off as a city-state in Italy then and moved around its capital several times, changed its language and location, but has nonetheless remained continuous. An imaginary political entity that we call the "Roman Empire" without any disambiguation whatsoever. Is that the kind of history that you were taught Roydosan? I doubt it, this is just your personal POV that you want to pass in the article. You have some weird ideas about wikipedia and you think that we have to search for the truth and correct the misconceptions that govern the world (such as the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th century AD). I tried to explain to you what is meant by "no original research" but you don't seem to get the picture.

5698:

of Roman, much like being 'English and European' - Except in this case the umbrella identity takes precedence because what little remained of the original Roman Empire under Heraclius had a large Greek majority inside it's borders, and hence the universal term could be used as a narrower one without it changing. In regards to your comments about the Hellenic Republic, time is immaterial in this discussion - you have to read about Modern Greece's History to understand the enormity of the influence of Greece's Byzantine past on the Modern Greek nation state post 1829 - in all aspects, from the poetry of Kavafis to the politics of Venizelos. And Marcellinus wrote during Julian the Apostate's reign, sometime after Constantine (the generally accepted starting point of the Byzantine Empire), and my point with regards to his writings is he considers himself both a Greek and a Roman, exhibiting that the two identities could exist in harmony with one another.

2896:

with it. Why? Because the definition of empire, at least in my eyes, is the conquering of foreign cultures. By that definition, the Byzantines were an empire because they ruled parts of Latin Italy, regions that are now serbia, the Bulgars, and the Egyptians. Sure, they spoke Greek - but language is only one aspect of identity. Modern Greeks today, would consider Greek language, and christianity (especially Orthodoxy) as what constitutes someone being "Greek". But that is now. Back then, they considered themselves Romans. They called themselves Roman. They never called themselves Byzantine. So the problem is, trying to balance our modern day perspective, with their own perspective, to get the closest we can to the truth. But we never will get the truth, and that is why history is so great - because it is a reflection of times when people wrote, and those views reflect what our descndants will consider of us when one day, we are history as well.

3051:

until the 7th-8th centuries in the Empire, it will go second. After that the thranslation in English should come and that is (approximatively) Empire of the Romans. I say approximatively because Imperium can be also translated with "Power", "Authority" (although Auctoritas can also be translated with "Authority"; but in Latin Imperium and Auctoritas are very different things), "Domain", "Country" etc. Than, in brackets (Byzantine Empire), the name by which the Empire is known today in English. "Empire of the Romans" MUST be written, because the Greek and Latin words need to be translated (maybe someone who reads this article doesn't know Greek or Latin, so they should know how the Empire was called officially). "Byzantine Empire" should also be present, because this is the name used today by most people, but it should be in brackets because it was NEVER USED BY THE BYZANTINES THEMSELVES.

4734:

Constantinople". Of course, I'm not as sure about earlier sources, but during the crusades these are the standard terms - an unfavourable emperor like Alexius I was "imperator Graecorum" to the crusaders, but a favourable emperor like Manuel I was "imperator Constantinopolensis", even if they always referred to the people simply as "Greeks". On the other hand, after the crusades up to 1453 it tends to be the Greek Empire again. As for the Muslims, I am again less knowledgeable, but when do Islamic sources call them Greeks? And why would they do so? The obvious example is the Sultanate of Rum, which borrowed the Empire's name for itself, but I'm sure the Ummayads and Abbasids and Fatimids also called it something like that earlier. Or maybe Turkish states used some variation of "Rome" while Arab states used something different, having been in contact with that part of the world longer?

6636:

after Caracalla's decree many peoples began to self-identify as Roman, and the Greeks not the least, but they still considered themselves ethnically Greek, as Marcellinus' writings show - This was effectively a dual identity, like one considering himself French ethnically but also European, except in the Roman sense, the Roman identity had a far stronger identity because it meant citizenship of a universal empire that had long ceased to have any kind of pure 'Roman' (as in Republican Rome) ethnicity. The introduction of Christianity only helped this identity become stronger in the Greek East, as Hellene became a synonym for pagan - so as the Western Empire crumbled and died, there was no need for an ethnic designation as the only Roman World left was The Hellenistic East, and hence the term Roman became the sole method of self-identification as it adopted an ethnic meaning again.

5772:

Roman Empire until it was split and the centre was at Constantinople. From Constantinople they ruled over much of the eastern Mediterranean all the way to morocco. Since the centre was at Constantinople I can’t see how Greeks can even say it is a Greek empire, they were part of the empire, peripheral land. If any country should claim it as ‘their’ Empire I would think it to be the Turks as the centre was at Constantinople or even Rome as it originally was seen as a Roman Empire, ironically it survived the Western Roman Empire. I would think that this topic would be a source of discussion. Further more when the Latin Empire was set up, Greece was conquered by successive European rulers, Constantinople was liberated from the lands of nicea not Greece, someone please tell me what importance Greece had on the Byzantine Empire that it should deserve to claim it as theirs?

4297:. The CIA World Factbook is also helpful for this information. Although I stress here that the numbers are not exact, they do give a rough idea of the order of magnitude of the populations we are talking about here. To briefly explain the point of the excercise again, I think that the empire had greater underlying strengths in 717AD than its appearance would suggest, and that overall it was in a much better position in that year than in 1081AD. Why should we care? Because, in my opinion, it may help to explain why the empire failed to re-establish itself fully after 1081, and in comparing the position of the empire in its moments of crisis, we can perhaps start to identify its strengths and weaknesses at different points in its history, and in so doing ultimately come a step closer to understanding what happened. 3647:

declared a FA. Therefore, it seems unfair that it should now be deFAced. But to answer your point more specifically, I think that since most Knowledge users will search for 'Byzantine Empire', the article should stay where it is. You mentioned that we need to decide what the article is. I do see a certain logic to your argument in that articles should be consistent. However I do not think that re-naming it or moving things around is the answer. This article is an overview of the cultural and political history of the Byzantine Empire, and as such I think it is perfectly legitimate to point out the lasting relevance and importance of Byzantium to the modern world. I do however agree with you that the small section at the end could do with cleaning up. But is it really necessary to enact draconian deFAcing measures?

3325:

most common term. The reason behind this new term has to do with efforts by Western scholars to distance the New Roman Empire (the Empire of New Rome - Nova Roma) as the successor of the Roman Empire. The result of this was that historians ignored -at a relatively large extent- any research on the topic. This effect was coupled by the idea that "almost anything happened in Middle Ages is more or less worthless". Nevertheless, since roughly the beginning of 20th century, some prominent historians focused on research on the so called "Byzantine Empire". This focus in being increased today, although it is still not given sufficient attention in terms of the time it lasted (more than a millenium!) and the influence it had to the entire South East Europe at least (Balkans, Russia, Middle East etc) --

4324:. From a military point of view, the Byzantine army was by then composed largerly by non-Greek missionaries who had no ethnic bonds to the Empire. This however is not the decline as you present it. The Empire was re-established under the Comnenoi, and re-conquered significant portions of land in Europe and Asia. The decline gradually begins during the Angeloi dynasty and reaches its peak at the fall of Constantinople to the crusader army (1204). That's when the empire loses its political strength, but yet you can't say that it's all over. The second Byzantine renaissance takes place during the 15th century, and for the first time Classical scholarship is introduced to the West. Those events are closely connected to the Italian renaissance and the discovery of the New World (since Colombus used 4311:

the Ottoman state. During the Ottoman occupation of Byzantium many Turks moved towards the West and many Greeks adapted Islam (hence became Turks). Until 1922 half of the Greek population was situated in Asia Minor and Constantinople. After the population exchanges with Turkey, all Greeks were displaced into the Greek state and vice versa. By that time Turkey had a population of 7 million. Hence the majority of the people we call "Byzantines" (who were not assimilated into other cultures) were displaced into modern Greece. Still it would be naive to use the current Greek birth-rate and assume that it has been uniform the past 1700 years. Furthermore Albanians, Bulgarians and Turks are irrelevant to the people in question, as they have always had independent cultural and ethnic identities.

1388:

Empire (before Manzikert) actually regarded themselves as Greeks. Your grasp of recent scholarship on this point is impressive and I am inclined to defer to you. Might I suggest you add a sentence or two to the article about why the Seljuks were able to take over and Islamicize eastern and central Anatolia with so little apparent resistance from the local population -- and why the imperial state didn't exert itself more strongly to recover what some modern scholars have depicted as the Empire's heartland. This is something that's always puzzled me. Its like the big elephant in the middle of the living room in the accounts (admittedly outdated) of Byzantine history that I have read. Had environmental degradation already partly depopulated this region, or what?

4343:

to calculate the number of 'Byzantines', but that is not what this is about. I am thinking of the number of people available to the Byzantine Empire as a state. I think that the number of people living in Asia Minor will always be more than the number of people living in the Balkans because the area of habitable land is larger in Asia Minor, which enables there to be a higher population density. So in some ways it is not even about the people themselves, it is about how much use certain geographical areas of land were to the Byzantine Empire. Geography often has important effects on history, for instance the Roman Empire never expanded beyond the Rhine because their supply lines had become over-extended and the land was not considered worth conquering.

180:

that each leader of the state is responsible for the successes or failures that occur during their reign, I am increasingly coming round to the view that it has more to do with underlying institutions and the way the state itself works. For example, under the Comneni the empire was saved by three very capable rulers, but their success masks underlying problems which resulted in catastrophe after they were gone. I have argued that the theme system was one of the crucial reasons for Byzantine success over the centuries, and that its demise coupled with the reliance on strong government by the emperor meant that the state was no longer healthy. Does anyone agree with me on this issue, or are there alternative explanations that I have not covered?

1266:

rendering older works outdated. The simple fact that even before the fall of Rome "Roman" had already began to mean "Greek" demonstrates the marginalization of foreign societies (which shouldnt be a suprise given that even in the pre-Diocletian empire some lands were favored over others despite their equality in law). See for example Warren Treadgold (History of the Byzantine State and Society, 1997, pg.136): "By that time most easterners had come to think themselves as Christians, and more than ever before had some idea that they were Romans. Although they may not have liked their government any more than before, the Greeks among them could no longer consider it foreign, run by Latins from Italy. The word

5825:

reason, because that's how the Byzantine elite also ended up viewing itself in the 14th century. I find it ridiculous and erroneous to try to ignore those facts or try to deprive them of their importance by pretending that the Byzantine state was a nationless entity, supposedly the direct continuation of what most people perceive as "ancient Roman", the latter being officially "dead" since the 5th century AD. I feel that the ethnic Greek connection is indeed overstressed on a different section (I think compiled by yourself), where it says that all some guy in the court of Attila responded that he was a 'Graikos' or something like that. My edits on the head are directly taken from Ostrogorky's work.

5642:

as a Greek, I will not let you carry your own personal agenda and try to shape this article around it, and if the Empire WAS latin, as you continously state - then why has all the real Historical scholarship on it (until recently) come from Eastern sources? Western Europeans didn't give a damn about their Eastern Greek brethren then, and they don't now (just look at the Cyprus problem). We ARE the inheritors of Byzantine Culture, it defined what we believe as our natural borders (The Megali Idea), because it is the precursor to the Modern Hellenic Republic. Is it the precursor to the Modern Italian Republic, or French Republic? No. So stop spreading half truths and lies, it's getting ridiculous.

5633:

had wanted to, edited the page to suggest that Roman had become synonomous with Greek by the 6th Century - As Totila refers to The Byzantines as Greeks, as do many other sources from that century. Not to mention the fact that the Byzantines were still ethnically Greek. If you want to dispute that a Greek can consider himself ethnically Greek, but part of a non-ethnic identity of 'Roman', then I advise you to read Marcellinus. The fact that the Western Roman Empire had fallen though, meant that in the Byzantines eyes, the only other Romans around after this point WERE ethnically Greek, and hence their self-identification as Roman as something partially ethnic beyond the 5th Century.

2397:

obviously was - even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?)

6283:

assosiated with the Hellenes. as the word 'Greek' is attributed to the Hellenes (this is how we call ourselves). about 'blend of cultures', well, every modern and past state is/was a blend... do u think that there exists a country in the western world without greek and roman influences? the modern western system of laws is based on the Roman model (but it would be ridiculous for someone to name e.g. Sweden a Roman state!). the modern western system of governing comes from the ancient greek (democracy) (yet noone would call e.g. Australia a greek state). in the same way, the Byzantine Empire inherited (or continued to have) many roman traditions, systems, etc, but it was a

4546: 6773:

The fact they called themselves Romans means nothing. And why the hell are westerners trying to come here and claim the ERE as their own? I mean, they've spent the last damn 3 centuries defaming the medieval Greeks (Romans)! When the idiots didn't even have the balls to take a look at their own Middle Ages history, I mean, look at Britain's Middle Ages History, since the Romans left up until the William's invasion in 1066 they accomplished absolutely nothing! Yet they can attack Greeks about OUR middle ages history, when we had public baths, universities, an effective system of government, philosophers and so on?

5812:

mentioned in the opening paragraph as well? All it does it bulk up space. The reader doesnt need to be told the empire was called "empire of the Greeks" or "Greece" every few lines. I think the opening paragraph at least, should be reverted to the edition prior to Roydosan edits. There is simply no reason for all that additional information to be kept there. Most if not all readers will relate immediately when they read in the first three lines that "Greek-speaking" = "Greek". And those that do not understand the obvious will in the following sections, where the Greekness of the empire is dealt with in detail.

6632:

this point, particularly in the Byzantine Empire, you tend to find that people (with no understanding of History), like to compare how people identify themselves in modern day nation states to how they identified themselves before that. For example, Roydosan's argument rests on this crux - That the 'Byzantines' called themselves 'Romans', and ergo they were Latin 'Romans' and not what we would call today 'Greek'. But he completely misses the point, in addition to the fact he is just downright wrong on several of his hypotheses. No one is disputing that there was continuity between the old Roman World.

6169:. I suppose your erroneous POV is the answer to why I made those edits in the head of the article. As I said editor opinion doesn't matter in wikipedia, all that matters is to reflect scholarly consensus. All my edits are sourced, and all I've been getting by POV-pushers is "I've never seen that" or "that's not correct because --POV follows--". Unless you can provide a credible sources which would explicitely falsify one of the already referenced claims on the article, please stop wasting my time and provoking edit wars. That goes for everybody who think they're smarter than the academic consensus. 5793:

Talk page before making any edits whatsoever. I'm tired of people like Roydosan who keep removing information that simply don't fit to their personal image of the situation. Some editors' own lack of understanding or denial of the historical truth is the only threat to this article. If you think that a certain edit is a "blatant POV" then paste it in Talk and ask for the editor's sources before removing. If you're still not convinced then try to find a credible source which implies the opposite. If you can't do any of the above then realize that you have no case as far as wikipedia is concerned.

6325:

majority area, the term Roman basically became synonomous with ethnic identification as well (as as far as the Byzantine Romans were concerned, they, the Greek speaking Romans, where the last 'Romans' left), I'm sick of pointing out the connotations Hellene had with pagan, and the connotations of Roman and Christianity. This is getting old, The Empire was not a Greek nation state, but it was solidly Greek by the time of Heraclius in it's perception by outsiders, it's language, it's ethnicity and it's culture (though with an Oriental mix). This is getting fucking tiresome.

5857:

the article which contradicted those fact i.e. that supposedly Wolf had something else in mind which didn't deny the Roman heritage and similar silly claims. What I do know and am able to source is that Chalcondyles directly referred to the Byzantine Emperor as the "Emperor of the Hellenes", and was generally one of the people who liked to stress Byzantium's Hellenic character, so it wouldn't amaze me to find the word "Byzantium" in his writings. It's nowhere claimed in the article that he popularized it or even tried to give it an official use, that's assigned to Wolf.

2318:

left only Asia Minor and the Balkans, both immiscibly Greek populated lands, as the article already makes clear. How many times did the Popes or the Germans refer to the Byzantines as Greeks, proving that any remaining non-Greek populations were too small to be taken into account? In fact, King Khosrau II of Persia, in threatening letter he sent to Heraclius refered to the Byzantines as "Greeks", and that was in 622 when the empire's Asian and European territories where still intact (see 3-volume work by John Julius Norwhich, book 1, chapter: The First Crusader).

1669:. Again you claim that its not a distortion of truth, yet you leave room for doubt by implying the label "Greek Empire" is a paradox or at least peculiar given that other ethnic groups co-existed along with Greeks. As if there ever was or ever will be a state or even a nation-state which is ethnicaly 100% pure. So, unless the Byzantine empire is a special case, why should the obvious need be mentioned at all? Isnt it a given that ethnic minorities exist in every sovereign state? Is it necessary to mention that Romania isnt inhabited by ethnic Romanians only? - 4500:

Well, yes, Orthodox Christianity spread to FYROM as well, it also did to Albania and Bosnia (the latter two later became predominantly non-Orthodox), but FYROM, just as Ukraine and (SOMEBODY FORGOT!) Belarus, didn't exist at that time, it was created in as late as 1945 by Tito's Communist Yugoslavia, with the initial support of Stalin the USSR, right? As for Ukraine and Belarus, they adopted Orthodox Christianity while still being a single country with Muscovite Russia at the end of the 10th century, so, if we just said Kievan Rus, it would do fine, right?

2382:, etc.); and so on. It is not incorrect to refer to its later phase as a Greek empire, but claiming that it was not a multi-ethnic empire through much of its history is bizarre. And note also: many of those "Greeks" were in fact Hellenized peoples of originally non-Hellenic ethnicity: South Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, and so on and so forth, though since they later became Greeks, one can't use them to claim a multi-ethnic empire (the various ethnicities became absorbed into the Greek ethnos). Still, it is pointless to claim that the 1054:

of romanization is very much in order. Good examples are the titles of the emperor: aftokrátor (autocrator in quasi-Latin) and vasiléfs (basileus). (If you're looking for evidence that β was pronounced and not , just look at the Cyrillic alphabet, which dates from the mid-Byzantine era: the letter в, borrowed directly from Greek, represents , and a new letter (б) was invented for the sound.) Anyway, an article on Greek history should represent Greek terminology and names in a less Latinocentric manner. I'm not going to mess with the names of the

4630:

armies were powerful and efficient. Its navy, armed with Greek fire, was formidable. The theme system afforded the empire a solid system of military recruitment and supply. And finally the empire's frontiers may have fallen back since previous centuries, but they had come to rest on excellent defensive positions. The Taurus-Anti Taurus mountains in Asia Minor, and the impregnable land walls of Constantinople in the west, protected the heart of the empire and provided it with a heartland that could not easily be taken by any outsider, however powerful.

1625:

the west, it is a modernist construction as artificial as "Byzantine Empire", because in truth neither was used by roman contemporaries in the manner historians use it today. The fact that the former holds a precedent over the later (in that it was used by 4th and 5th cent. authorities) doesnt give it an edge over other terms. Like another contributor noted above, the Roman empire in antiquity differed vastly from that in the middle ages and nominal continuities shouldnt overshadow irreversible breaks with the past. No need to be scholastic.

2586:, and if the presence defines multi-ethnicity then we all live in multi-ethnic countries today. The truth of the matter is that such groups are recognized certain priviliges in order to protect them from the norm exactly because they are considered little less than foreigners inside their own country. The Armenians were a divided nation that lived on the borders between Byzantium and Persia. The population that lived within Asia Minor numbered 1/10th of the Greeks in that region, and at the same time were considered a culturally 1170:

it was more Roman than the Western side of Europe depends entirely on which side you sympathise. It is important to note to people who don't know much about the subject, that there has been a lot of western European bias about the Byzantine empire (they were hated and envied) up until recently. The empire has been shunned from the (Western-written) history books. Modern Greek people regard themselves as descendants of the Byzantines (rather than the Ancient Greeks), and so there is a lot of pride in the empire by Greek people.

1662:

do that was creating a new name that would have no relation with its ancient past. The fact that you insist on using a term that makes the connection with antiquity all the more evident and the distinction with it all the more confusing goes against the very reasoning it was based upon. Otherwise it would just be called the Roman empire, without the easterns and byzantines. Middle ground isnt always the best solution, which is why academics prefer "Byzantine". But you seem to be fixated on that so I wont push it. So be it.

6261:, "A "Macedonian" ethnic group exists officially only for some 15 years, comparing it to the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium is an absurde anachronism to begin with." It is precisely what I was trying to convey in my first paragraph and helps me with my point that we can't depend on the present and near past to attempt to understand an empire 500 years under Turkish rule. As for a Hellenic state, that is wasn't; it was a blend of Hellenic culture and the Roman culture. And those are things scholars support. (P.S. wasn't 3740:

Byzantine Empire during the crusades, and some mention of achievements in literature and art, so as to broaden out the understanding that the article gives the reader. The success or otherwise of a state is not measured just in terms of its wars and battles, after all, and I believe that there is some very good coverage of other aspects of Byzantium in the Origins and Identity & Consciousness sections. It's good to see that people care about this article. With a little effort I'm sure this will all work out well.

1299:

of that name together with portions of the trans-Euphratine kingdom of Greater Armenia and Pontus, indicates that the imperial authorities still regarded the regions as primarily Armenian." There is a plethora of medieval sources that distinct between Romans and Armenians, indicating and verifying that the Armenians never truly integrated into Byzantium and maintained their own national consience, which is why they were never anything more than an ethnic minority and alien to Roman nationality.

6309:

inclination to battle anachronisms nor is it my perogative. The subject was brough up and subscenquently was used. It would seem that the "sides" (and I do note that there are more than two perceptions presents) of this dicussion are mired in perceptions of the each other's goals and positions. Mayhaps those involved should clearly stipulate what they are fighting for, what they propose (i.e. changes to article) and finaly a synopsis of why? Reasonable? The current debat seems to have run amok.

6157:

of the Byzantine state. I guess this justifies my additions on Hellenistic age, it proves that many people are confused and it's vital to ellaborate. The Byzantine elite did recognise itself as "Hellenic" and the title "Emperor of the Hellenes" was frequently used from the 14th century. This has nothing to do with the fact that "Greek" was exclusively used by all the European (Latin+Slavic) world in both official and unofficial level, and by part of the Islamic world at official one (see

31: 1620:"Eastern Roman Empire" was a temporary term, used when the empire was ruled by two co-emperors and was permanently abandoned after the fall of the western half of the Roman empire. The term is not recorded in any official records after the 5th century nor is it used in any pre-modern histories. For the short period of time it was used it didnt relate to any of the cultural or other processes underway that would eventually allow the east to grow independently of the west, but was used 2628:

Croats, Lombards, Georgians, Venetians or any conquered people were never put in the process of assimilation. In the same way India was part of the British empire, but Indians were not considered British. The autocephaly of Churches is an even better indication of the political enviroment in Byzantium. The Church in Constantinople remained authoritative for the Byzantines, while non-Roman people had their own Churches recognized by the ecumenical Patriarch, including the Armenians.

6014:

obviously based on how non-Byzantines viewed Byzantium back in the day. Ostrogorsky uses "medieval Greek Empire" and "Greeks" or "Byzantine Greeks" in the place of "Byzantines" all the time, and so do most of modern historians (see Jonathan Phillips among many others). Having that in mind, I see no reason to give in to some editors' potential chauvinism and denial of the historical truth. You're literally suggesting to ignore and remove what most modern historians take for granted.

99:

opponents, Byzantine suffered catastrophic deafeats. Theme army contained mostly light infantrymen. Such soldiers, even perfectly commanded, could not defeat Norman or Turkish professional. The Theme foot soldiers could not be reequipped or trained to match new types of enemies. Each Theme peasant-soldier was simply too poor to purchase necessary equipment. Also, he had to time to train. In contrast, Norman knight or Turkish horse archer could devote his entire life for training.

3632:. Although another vote (one one or both resulting articles) could do nothing but give us more constructive criticism and further improve the article(s), IMHO. And looking at the article, I think that it may take a while before this can be improved to the level of PLCommonwealth or IGEmpire as a 'former state' type article. I'd recommend moving history to 'history of...' article, FAC it, updating the 'Byzantine Empire', and either FARing it or FACing it if FARC comes to force. -- 5999:

doubt this. Anyone reading this would get the impression that they saw themselves as Greeks (some may have done but in the main the evidence does not support this as being widespread). Secondly I don't see how other people saw them/referred to them as being worthy of mention in the opening para - although it is rightly mentioned later. Ostrogorsky's view, if as you claim, is not shared by all scholars and is therefore his POV - that does not mean he is not a serious scholar.

1593:

Byzantine history in the Roman Empire article? To recount Byzantine history at the same length as one recounts the earlier history would make the article unwieldy. Plus, you open the question of whether the western empire that recommenced with Charlemagne should be discussed. (The rationale for crowning Charlemagne, after all, was that the Byzantine throne was empty due to the usurpation of Irene). And that would just be a mess. Why don't we just leave it as it is?

5375:

East Germany. But still, we accepted the idea of a German reunification (in truth the West just absorbed the East), acknowledging that the East Germany was also a German state. This reunification simply NEVER happened in the case of the Roman states (Justinian successors could not hold Italy). Therefore, the Byzantine Empire which was not accepted as the "old Roman" entity by the Western "Romans/Europeans" cannot be the same political entity as the "old" Roman empire.

6605:, not about what it was, nor what my edits implied. Of course it was in reality the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. You realise of course that being a "continuation of the Roman Empire" and "being the Roman Empire" are two different things. Now read the first two lines of the article and please stop complaining. The article says that it "was the Roman Empire" (known to most people to have ended in the 5th century) and my edits explain what is meant by that. 238:

it, fair enough but I was just poking a little fun at it with the whole pointlessness thing. Still, if you want to see something SPECTACULARLY pointless, check out the talk page and archives of the page on 'petrol', or 'gas' if you're american :) Unbelievable that people got so worked up about whether to call it petrol or gas! Hell, I'm not offended that a whole bunch of people in america want to use the wrong word! hey just joking... both words are fine!

6731:). And the reference to "the Greek (Byzantine) Empire" as this is incorrect for reasons I've escribed to the nth degree above. What I object to is that anyone looking at this might get the impression that it was a Greek nation state which saw itself in those terms - which it quite patently wasn't; especially if you take the starting point as Constantine - when the empire still included Britain, France, Spain, North Africa - all very definitely not Greek. 4822: 1792:, a major source of information on the flags of the fourteenth century. It is described as having combined the George Cross (red cross on white field) and the Arms/Flag of the Palaeologus Dynasty (gold cross with four gold fire steles - Πυρεκβόλα - on a red field). The steles represented the letter "B" (beta) in Greek, and formed the initials of the Paleologian motto - Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων - "King of Kings, ruling over Kings". 1422:. I seriously encourage you *NOT* to move this. I don't see why "Eastern Roman Empire" is all that much more accurate, they didn't call it that either. In modern historiography it is called "Byzantine Empire" no matter what they called it...I mean, every modern work on the subject calls them "Byzantine" (personally I have three text books with "Byzantine" in the title, and Dumbarton Oaks has "Byzantine Studies", etc etc). Please, DON'T move it. 6736:

trying to say - I was not excluding the Hellenistic culture from this but rather arguing that to say that it was the continuation of Hellenistic culture alone is inaccurate. The Byzantine empire was the direct continuation of the Graeco-Roman world (a culture which is as much Greek as it is Latin, hence the name). By stating it was the direct cultural continuation of the hellenistic world you are missing out a few centuries of cultural input.

4830: 4604: 3938:"In the eleventh century the economy began to decline. The Italians acquired silk worms, undermining the imperial monopoly. The crusades altered the trade routes to the advantage of the Italian city-states. Territorial gains by the Arabs and Turks cut off the empire from traditional trading partners. For political and military reasons the empire was forced to grant concessions to Italian traders, reducing tax revenues" 4596: 5556:

self-identification as Romans was largely due to the spread of Christianity in the East, Caracalla's edict and the association of the word 'Hellene' with pagan. Also I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Browning's book) about friction between native Greeks and foederati in the Army. Imo it should be referred to as the 'Greek Roman Empire', and the West after Diocletian's reforms as the 'Latin Roman Empire'.

4851: 6232:

the Greek World: in terms of origins of the people-and the majority of Emperors-, of language-greek was the mother tangue of the people of the region during all the Roman Empire's era and became official after the 7th century-, of culture- byzantine music, painting, architecture, etc descent (with many foreign infuences) from ancient greek culture (and continue in the one or the other form till today (see

4801: 1321:, not themes, which means they were recognized as a non-Roman people who were not granted citizenship, did not participate in the army, were exluded from the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and served primarily to protect the Greek speaking territories south of them. The position of Venice parallels this. As part of the empire in the 10th century, just like Bulgaria, she served more as an ally. 6118:

would be ironically the "Greek Church" (as the Latins called it), for they regarded "Hellene" a synonym to "pagan". I gave you the titles of some books, most of which are easy to find, if you insist that you've never seen such terms written before then you can check with your local library. Until you do so please stop removing sourced information and basing your edits on original research.

5678:. Instead of trying to turn the Byzantine Empire into the Greek Empire why not be proud of the fact that the Greeks, conquered by the Romans, rose to such prominence and power that they not only became Roman but redefined what it meant to be a Roman. That would be a more honest portrayal of history and there is no shame in it - no other ethnic group in the Roman empire managed that. 1629:

mediaeval- is required, nor is a bundle of smaller ones sorted out in periods, nor is any renaming required. "Byzantine" is a better established term than "Eastern Roman" and roman history in wikipedia is more or less already well categorized. There's room for improvement but I dont think there's a need for massive restructuring. What's needed is closer ties to academic discipline. -

1457:"Byzantine Empire." And, logically, it doesn't make much sense to call it after the name that its capital bore before the state itself existed. That being said, as Adam points out, dominant English usage remains "Byzantine Empire," and wikipedia's job should be to reflect usage, not create it. The fact that other terms are sometimes used ought to be mentioned up front, though. 5371:

seccesion had been peaceful. Then let us imagine that the "North" had been conquered by several countries, and the "South" somehow claimed and believed to be the old US of A. Would that simply make them so? No it wouldn't, because it would be ignoring the historical North. The South would be a lawful successor state, and nothing else. Same should apply to the Roman Empire.

6479:, pervade Knowledge. Byzantists can be reasonably grouped with students of Modern Greek; although not identical, the languages require many of the same skills. Claiming that Constantine XI was the successor of Augustus and Tiberius is no more than he claimed for himself. That being said, this article has always been advocacy, and I am not surprised it continues to be. 2425:

term "Empire" implies multi-ethnic, there's no point mentioning it. A multi-ethnic, expanding, Greek-speaking, Christian, medieval state can be efficiently summarised as: A Greek Empire. The Greeks vs Hellenised people is also a weak counter-argument. Ethnicity is defined in terms of culture, otherwise the only real Greeks (by your definition) would be the speakers of

6756:, two things: how and when it ended its life as a greek nation-state, and secondly, that the greek kings in the 19th and 20th centuries were assumed as the continuation of the byzantine dynasties, having the descenting number of same-named byzantine kings in their formal titled -hope u understand what i mean-(and thus recognised by all as the successors of Byzantium) 3960:

forced Constantinolpe to look elsewhere for its food supply. For political and military reasons the empire was forced to grant concessions to Italian traders, reducing tax revenues. The sack of Constantinolpe by Latin crusaders in 1204 was an economic catastrophe. Although the Palaeologues took back Constatiople in 1261, the empire's economy never entirely recovered.

2485:(including Bulgarians) in the Byzantine Empire as it stood between the 10th century and the 13th century. Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary name. 1817:

would be very interesting to discover whether it was borrowed from the Byzantines during the period, or the other way around (I'd be betting on the former). Then again, it may only have been described as the George Cross because the original author knew it as the George Cross - to the Byzantines it may only have been a "red Greek cross on a white field". Who knows?

6352:. Or is it that King's College organise its courses through the prism of Greek nationalism? Modern Greek emerges in the Byzantine world at least as early as the 12th century AD. Don't you think it will be ridiculous to imply that the Roman Empire of Scipio and Cicero survived well into the middle and spoke Modern Greek? Your abstract version of the story is simply 228:. Revolutions start in the name of something usually Freedom. Go to the north of your own country and ask somebody if you are still in England and they will defiantly say that you are in Scottland. I agree with you about the pointlessness of it all but fact is that ppl simply care. If they care it isn´t pointless. If it isn´t pointless it has to be debated. 215:

English, this is referred to as the Byzantine Empire. I see no point in having massive discussions about whether to call it Roman (byzantine) Empire or not (except for the comedy-value :)). As long as it is made clear both here and in the Roman Empire article that the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are one and the same thing, what is the problem?

165:; nevertheless I accept that it could be wrong, since different books often show different versions of the empire's boundaries. However the link you suggested leads to a map of Justinian's empire, five hundred years too early for the reign of Basil II. Perhaps you could edit the existing map and then re-upload it once the correction has been made? 4930:

iconoclastic era, Byzantine Theater wasn't really highly charged tragedies or comedies but largely sort of what we would call 'low brow' performances with jugglers and things like that. I guess a useful source would also be, strangely enough in the context, Procopius' description of what Theodora used to get up to when she was an 'actress'. :) --

6793:

Roydosan is trying to hide. What's most ironic is that those very Westeners (namely Franco-Brits) had once instisted that the Greek nation should rename itself from 'Roman' to 'Hellenic' if they wanted to receive support against the Muslim nations. That happened long before the term "Byzantine Empire" was introduced in the anglophone world by

5308:

quite defendable and also logical. But they do tend to get carried away with it, and exagerate enourmously the influence of the Ancient Greeks and of the Byzantines upon History, ad absurdum. Still there is (or was until recently) also a "Brittish-French" POV which saw the Byzantines as oriental, weak, despotic, inferior, and effeminate. Read

6811:

later became Byzantine, had much a more striking Hellenistic cultural heritage for the simple reason that it was almost entirely inhabited by Greek and Hellenised people. Finally I still find your objection in using "Saint Constantine" absurde. The sentence clearly states that Constantine was a Saint only in the eyes of the Byzantine state.

1183:

the empire was in steep decline, and at its most vulnerable as it tried to reclaim lost land, is inappropriate. I will try to find a better map, but I think people should be aware of this. It is the equivalent of using a map of modern day Britain, and as the sole picture, implying that is what the British Empire was like at its peak.

2596:

Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs.

2429:. According to your definition, the ancient Greeks should not be called Greeks either, as they were basically the admixture of Indo-European Greek speakers and the barbarians locals in Greece (e.g. Pelasgians). Ancient Athens is by no sane person regarded as a "multi-ethnic city-state", therefore your logic is academically false. 1309:

temporary and whatever population movement came with them eventually returned to north of Macedonia where it remained ever since. The few Slavic settlers that did remain behind were either assimilated by Greeks or marginilized into extinction since no medieval source indicates the presence of large slavic population among Greeks.

1081:, and the fact is that for Greek names English traditionally uses Latinised forms, so we write Byzantium rather than Byzantion, just as we write Moscow rather than Moskva etc. I think this is a sound practice in a general-readership encyclopaedia (as opposed to an enkuklopaidia). Once we abandon this principle, where do we stop? 336:

gratness, and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically applied...The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues os priests, eunuchs, and omen, ofpoisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude." by Historian William E. H.Lecky (1869), A history of european morals from Augustus to Charlemagne

6287:. about Alexander... what should i comment? there have been thousands of posts in wikipedia about him and the ancient macedonians... he considered himself greek, his people and country greek, and all the above were seen as greek by the others (Strabo, Plutarch and all the ancient writers picture him as greek). unless u mean 1294:

Integration in the Byzantine Empire, 1998, pg.54):As early as the reign of Diocletian, the ancient cis-Euphratine kingdom of Armenia Minor emerged from Cappadocia to become a seperate province which was split under Theodocius I into Armenia I and Armenia II... Subsequent evidence that the region remained demographicaly and

2268:! I dont understand the logic behind it. If nationality was indeed unknown in the middle ages, as some users would have us believe, despite the testimonies of contemporaries that prove otherwise, by applying the same methodology to other medieval states would it be an accurate description naming medieval France as 1695:

that the Roman empire existing another thousand years. The somewhat sad truth however is that the Byzantine became somthing else, although it was always a successor state it evolved into a greek empire, and grew out of it's roman routes. This is reflected in the change of official language from latin to greek.-

6664:

on earth is the Roman Empire called something else?". Finally what you removed as POV, i.e. the Byzantine Empire being a cultural continuation of the Hellenistic East, and the term "Byzantium" being coined in order to give a "Classical" sound to the Empire, were both taken from the Oxford History of Byzantium.

5199:

different from colonial America - and yet we don't seperate those two America's. Technology, society, culture - they change. The Byzantine empire inherited its existance, it never was created. Lets not forget that it's the latter stage of the Roman Empire - not a seperate power that was created when Rome fell.

1099:

really screwed up Arabic romanization at the moment anyway...) Hell, it's not like we get the Latin Romans' names right in English, either... In short, I'd just like to see mediaeval Greek accurately romanized, while remaining within the Knowledge convention of filing things under English versions of names. —

6826:

Greco-Roman world centuries ago), but only insofar, as the classical Roman Empire itself was heir to the Hellenistic world ("Hellenistic" in the sense in which it is used in English: denoting the world of Alexander's successors until their conquest by Rome). I would therefore propose some wording like

6746:

I do not mind editting 'Constantine I' and not 'St. Constantine', since it is clearly Orthodox POV. In addition, i do not mind referring to the empire as the 'de jure' continuation of the Roman one. nor i would object to the reference about the 'Graeco-Roman world (a culture which is as much Greek as

6663:

Exactly because the majority of people think that Roman=Latin and because the dictionary definition of Latin is "the language of ancient Rome and its Empire", a disambiguation between ancient Latin and medieval Greek or German Romans must be made. If for no good reason because people will wonder "why

6631:

My second point is this, nation states as they exist today are the sums of their cultural and historical parts, I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that, because there is such as stark difference the emergence of Nationalism in the 19th century in Europe and self identification of people's before

6434:

When I was an undergrad, Byzantine studies were part of the Classics department (but I don't think that university teaches anything Byzantine at all, now). At my current university, and I'm sure you will all be apopleptic about this, it is taught in the Near and Middle Eastern Studies department. Ha!

6324:

To be honest, I'm losing patience with these arguments; I'm sick of repeating the same thing over and over again about modern comparitive methods of self-identification in an ethnic sense and the flaws of this analysis, I'm sick of pointing out that since the Empire was whittled down to a large Greek

6231:

According to all known sources and well known scholars, the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of:1. the Roman World: in terms of system of government, laws, administration, area-the eastern half of the Empire-, and religion-in the sense that Christianity developed within the the Roman Empire-. 2.

5792:

Obvious as it is, the article's content is questioned by people of a poor understanding of the subject. I restored edits that I had directly based on credible sources, whether editors here want to accept them or not is irrelevant. Editors who have doubts about the article's neutrality, should use the

5771:

When I was reading this article it seems that people like to reference the Byzantine empire as a Greek empire. How is this so? Because they spoke greek it does not mean they are a greek empire, I would think that the greeks were just part of the empire. The Byzantine Empire was originally part of the

5649:

What? Have you actually read anything I have written? Seriously? Because as far as I know not once have I claimed or argued for the Byzantine empire as a 'Latin' empire - but what I have argued against is the idea that they weren't Romans. There is no 'Latin agenda' behind that. Romans had changed by

5641:

You obviously have an agenda - this much is not disputed by you, you are a Catholic and you intend to Catholicize and Latinize Greek History to whatever extent you can. But I WILL stand in your way and attempt to maintain an NPOV policy on this page. This is our History, as Greeks, this is MY history

5637:

I picked the 7th century because it was the eventual culmination of Hellenization throughout the Government linguistically, as well as Heraclius' emphasis as the War against the Persians as a Greek War, and his adoption of the title 'Basileus'. If you read Browning, as stated above, you can also read

5603:

Me and two other users (Adam Bishop and another guy whose name escapes me), were planning to start a new article about Byzantine Law in general, maybe following it from Late Antiquity after Constantine, to the Corpus Juris Civilis, through the Middle Ages (with references to influence of Maritime Law

5544:

Would it help to have a couple of quotes? Off the top of my head, I remember Anna Comnena and Nicetas Choniates constantly refer to ancient Greek history and mythology, but Anna at least refers to the empire as Roman. (Although my horrible evil Latin bias still thinks it should be made clear that the

5070:

I don't want to delete the "Βασιλεία τῶν ῾Ρωμαίων" from the opening paragraph at all. There was, however, an IP who changed it to "Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία", and he did have a point, in the context of the sentence. The opening sentence doesn't say "The Byzantine Empire was a state in...", as the one on

4744:

It's true, the Islamic world did generally refer to Byzantium officially by its political name, "Rum", but a number of Arab and Jewish scholars who were more familiar with ancient Greek history used "Yunan" (<Ionian) in their writings, a collective term which was introduced by ancient Persians (by

4708:

It's also mentioned in the section "origin of the name". According to my sources that was the exclusive name that europeans used to refer to the Empire and its people (that or Graecia), hence it's important to mention it in the head, as it appears in every contemporary account. The "Byzantine Empire"

4499:

I only have one objection, and it is about the mentioning of FYROM, with its present-day name, in a historical article like this one... I think that when we speak about Byzantium, which is part of a certain historical period, we should use terms that refer to THAT period, and not terms created later.

4257:

I've been thinking about how to explain the collapse of the empire. I wanted to compare the low point of the empire in 717AD, from which it recovered, with the low point in 1081AD, from which it did not. A brief experiment reveals that the modern day population of the area controlled by the empire in

3914:

I was thinking of improving the economy section, but I was unsure of how to approach it. I've already explained the twelfth century economy, for example, in the section on the 'comneni and the crusades', which is where I think that information should stay. But how can we improve the 'economy' section

3660:

I hope it won't be. But ATM it would not pass the FA process, and unless that changes, it will have to go. Again, I hope we can improve it (one way or another) so it is not necessary, but currently, as an overview of the former state (as the name implies) this article fails (it is not comprehensive).

3339:

I have the Britannica and its article about the Byzantine Empire i hugely superior that our on Knowledge. I'm trying to improve as possible using Ostrogorsky, Norwich and a German book. I have arrived at Justinian era but the work is hard, especially 'cause at the same time I'm writing the History of

3183:

Denial in history: just look at the curiculum of American and European text books, as demostrated with the opening quotation at the begining of the section. Need another example? Gibbon. Maybe not deny its existance, but indrectly the downplaying by Gibbon for example, almost hides the empire under a

2886:

To please everybody's concerns? I always see a lot of angry Italians on these boards demanding the name be changed to 'Roman', I agree with them, ironically enough - As the article states, Latins had lost their Romanic Heritage with the Norman and other preceeding Invasions. Call it The Roman Empire,

2590:

people, meaning that they differentiated themselves from Byzantines, qualifying as a ethnic-minority status. The limited impact they had in the state was done from participation in the army, and of Byzantium's 91 emperors only 3 were of Armenian origin. And the Illyrian emperors are not considered to

2396:

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks. It was always my understanding that the term "Greek Empire" was one mostly used by Westerners. As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it

2247:

was born. Nationality, on a scale of millions, came out of the middle ages. Antiquity also witnessed similar movements, but only on small numbers (the ancient Greek city states for example all qualified as nations). In the case of the Byzantines, there are numerous testimonies that verify the concept

2041:

The ] page has recently been changed from a redirect (to here) to a disambig. The only alternate meaning given other than the Empire is the adjectival (convoluted, perversely complex). This latter sense is also covered in the article here (section #8) - so, for the sake of avoiding minor annoyance of

1894:

I've uploaded SVG versions of the Palaeologian flags (at least, for the ones I've been able to provide sources), however, the SVG images don't appear in the main article - strange. To get around this, I've provided JPG images under the same name. To get the SVG images, just change the extensions from

1628:

The men that fought against the Turks in 1453 believed that they fought defending the same empire Augustus forged in 27 b.c., yet only in name had those in Constantinople anything in common with Augustus' contemporaries in Rome. I dont think a larger common article about the Roman empire -ancient and

1392:

They did attempt to take back Anatolia, when they had a big enough army to do so, and they gradually took a lot of it back in the 12th century. Myriokephalon was more of a disaster than Manzikert in this sense - they never got eastern Anatolia back at all after that battle. By the way, you guys might

1298:

Armenian is provided by the complaints of the bishops of Armenia II, in their answer to the Encyclical of emperor Leo in 458, that they were living among barbarians. One century later, the great administrative reform of Justinian in 536, which created four Armenias, including the two former provinces

1034:

The way this is written, it makes it sound like everyone in the Eastern Empire spoke Greek. Greek was the language of Alexandria, Antioch and a few other major cities, but most of Egypt spoke Egyptian (Coptic), and Aramaic was the langauge of the area between Egypt and modern Turkey. There was also

819:

Alltough the term was invented by scholars and is factually wrong, it is still used by the majority of ppl. As the majority of ppl use and search for "byzantine empire" we should in name of common sense (if nothing else) use that "bloody" name (and that is final). The name of the template is : "Roman

335:

Same source: "Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, whithout a single exception, the most thouroughly base and despicable form that civilation has yet assumed. There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destite of all forms and elements of

282:

the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that POV is not the only one possible. A strong argument can be made that it was indeed the Roman Empire, since the Roman Emperor moved his capital to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople. "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is a useful way of

237:

lol don't worry everyone loves a good argument! I've been to Scotland, it's a great place but I would never think of it as England. But the difference between scotland and england is real enough, the people have their own identity. So people care about the name of this article and they want to debate

179:

Hi. I've been writing about the twelfth century in this article, and have added some new sections on this because I think it is a crucial turning point for the empire. I have been thinking about why empires rise and fall, and how there are diferent ways of looking at the reasons. Although you can say

6856:

I am about to begin working on the military wings of the byzantine culture and have an important question to as my fellow byzantine enthusiasts. Many books use latinized fors of naming soldiery as well as titiles. This could become confusing to the avarage reader or initiate needless minor bickering

6840:

Also, regarding Laonikos: Did he really use the term "Byzantine"? Or did you mean something else? While it is true that in 15th century Despotate of Morea, esp. in the following of Plethon, classical Hellas gained new prominence, those men of literature were creating something *new*, by highlighting

6676:

That may be so but an encyclopedia should give the facts not perpetuate ignorance. And before you quote Wiki policy none of it contradicts what I've just said. The quotes may have been from the OHB but as I've said before that does not mean they are not POV. I would say that they idea that Byzantium

6635:

My point is this, we should resolve it by proposing this - The Empire did have two distinctive characters of a Hellenistic East and Latin West even before Diocletian, despite both remaining solidly Roman, the only thing Diocletian did by splitting the Empire was to formally accentuate this division,

6527:

Miskin this is not original research. This is what every book on the Byzantine empire will tell you. That the empire was the continuation of the Roman empire. I do not think that we have to search for the truth I just believe that articles should be truthful. What you are attempting is a fabrication

6510:

Following you around? I've been watching this article since about the time Miskin began editing. The present argument is an example of why it is largely hopeless. Of course the Byzantine empire is the legal and institutional heir of the Roman state; of course it is culturally descended in large part

6282:

Thanks for finding my post 'good':). about Rum... well, this is used for the modern Greeks in Turkey, was used for the greeks by the 400 years of turkish rule, as it was used for the medieval Greeks by the Arabs. i can't see what u are disputing here... indeed, the term comes from 'Rome', but became

6156:

A "Macedonian" ethnic group exists officially only for some 15 years, comparing it to the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium is an absurde anachronism to begin with. I don't understand how can someone compare the British colonisation of India and the use of the English language to the official language

5579:

Because once the Latins secured their hold in the Balkans via the Crusades, they no longer felt the need to maintain their pretenses to the Roman throne by denying the Byzantines of their customary title. Which is why whereas before 1204 the policy of refraining to call Byzantines by their customary

5366:

BUT SO WHAT? We are not only what we like to believe we are (self-delusion). In truth: "We" are really composed by what we really honestly think we are, and what other ppl accept we are (a bit philosophical perhaps). If I do a deed which I believe is "good", does it make me a good person? It largely

5333:

I agree that they are the direct descendants of the Byzantines but it is falsifying history to pretend that the Byzantine empire was a Greek nationalistic state just as Gibbon was falsifying history by parodying the reality of mediaeval Byzantium. The problem is that people are assuming that Roman =

4892:

Being spread out among the text (having each map to each section pertaining to the time the map present) is the most aestheticly pleasing and it conforms ot how other empire articles are written. Having them here is a an alternative. The best way to implement the flluctuating frontier would probobly

4622:

In the first map the main enemy was the overwhelmingly powerful Ummuyad Caliphate. In the second map the enemy consisted of the Hungarians in the west, who were never much more than a local threat; the Normans of Sicily, who threatened Byzantine control over the western Balkans; and the Seljuk Turks

4612:

Is that a tricky question? It is simply not as easy as that. Much more important is who ruled when? If a strong and able emperor(s) ruled during the timeframe of the first image and a weak and incompetent emperor(s) ruled the second, the Byzantine Empire as a whole was much stronger during the first

4310:

in terms of modern "countries in question". You cannot calculate the population of Byzantium by using the birth-rates of Greece and Turkey, if for no good reason, because the Turks were a different people to the Byzantines. There had been massive population movements during and after the collapse of

4262:

since the middle ages, surely this reveals that the empire was significantly stronger in 717AD than in 1081AD. Logically therefore, this explains why the empire was able to recover after 717AD, but not after 1081AD. I would be very grateful for other people's comments and views on this idea, perhaps

4054:

read that, but it is entirely consistent with Runciman's description of the Byzantine economy in chapter 7 of his 'Byzantine Civilisation'. No doubt there are other historians with other opinions, but the idea of the Byzantine economy as a managed economy is certainly one view, and an important one.

3739:

I think there's a good consensus here that we should try to clean up the legacy section as best we can. I agree with Mark about using the comments constructively to improve areas of the article further. I've already tried to bring other aspects into the article, such as urban life, the wealth of the

3246:

As for it being contradictory, I think it just needs to be worded better. When I added that whole section, I made sure I did not delete any other previous content, and integrated past sentences into the bits I added. The whole Diocletion and Trebizond bits are examples of me trying to weave previous

1816:

No idea about the George Cross - it surprised me when I first saw it. Crosses have been used in Byzantine military/naval banners since the early centuries AD. According to most accounts, the Genoese and the English began using the George Cross as a "national" emblem from around late 13th century; it

1661:

You're being scholastic. Just because it contains the word "roman" doesnt mean it holds closer ties to historical truth than "byzantine" does. Both terms were adopted as a means to refer to the medieval empire as a SEPERATE entity without bringing to mind its ancient predecessor, and the only way to

1624:

for administrational reasons. The Roman empire from beginning to end was always considered a single realm, politicaly indistinguishable from the later christian empire that turned into a Greek nation state. In that respect, and insofar as "Eastern Roman Empire" describes the empire after the fall of

1592:

the empire, when the eastern empire continues to exist and is just as much the empire. But after that, so long as the Roman Empire article makes clear that the eastern empire continued and is known as the Byzantine Empire, and covered in that article, what would be the benefit of having a review of

1587:

Well, the Roman Empire article should of course note that the eastern empire survived until 1453. But I don't think it should go beyond that. The Byzantine Empire is a separate field of study from the Roman Empire. I agree with you that it is wrong to talk in the 5th century as though the western

1507:

Well, because it's more common, as you said. I think you just answered your own question. I don't know about you, but I've never met any Eastern Roman historians, taken a class on the Eastern Roman Empire, read any books about the Eastern Roman Empire...we call it Byzantine, that's just what we call

1169:

I really don't think it matters. Byzantine is just the term modern historian terminology, even though at the time the Byzantines regarded themselves as the Roman empire itself, which was true. I think the terms are interchangeable, and readers are well aware of this from the beginning. As to whether

1053:

Era, as there is evidence that ancient Greek was pronounced rather differently than modern Greek (although the resulting pronunciations do sound rather ugly...). For the Byzantine era, the evidence is that the pronunciation then current is more like modern than ancient Greek, and so a modern system

947:

Again, i don't know much about Byzantine Empire, but i've never ever heard about Khazars conquering whole Balkans, instead i know quite a few stories about Slavic tribes overhelming whole Balkans, Bulgars etc. In Kazars entry there is nothing about that (and that would be important fact). So is this

678:

I never meant to say that "Roman Empire" is an ethnic designation that Greeks don't deserve. I just regard that the use of the term "Roman" in the template will confuse the reader. After all the history of "Byzantium" is not as popular as that of Rome, so on the contrary, it would be nice to give it

534:

article) As far as the majority (here in Knowledge) knows, the majority of comtemporary scholars do use that term allthough it is "wrong" (and scholars admit that fact). The ordinary person will look for "Byzantine empire". Alltough the term was invented by scholars and is wrong, it is still used

192:

Your opinion has a withstanding historical basis. The fall of the empire did not come by independent wrong-doings of some emperors. It was the result of a century-long wrong policies followed by a series of emperors. For example although the Comneni were very capable military and diplomatic leaders,

6803:

The years of anarchy under Phocas mark the last phase in the history of the late Roman Empire. The late Roman or early Byzantine period, came to an end. Byzantium was to emerge from the crisis in an essentially different form, freed from the heritage of decadent political life, and fortified by new

6627:

Oh, just also like to point out that it's considered part of Greek studies at Warwick as well (where I am going to study after my gap year), to be honest I always thought the debate about whether it is considered part of Roman or Greek studies was kind of moot, most Universities do consider it part

6580:

As to your other comments I have no wish to deny anyone else their Roman heritage and I haven't argued that Byzantium has a monopoly on it. But what you are stating now is a bit different to what you have been arguing before. If you are willing to be this reasonable now why can't you be so over the

6132:

Now that just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Fine mention what other people called them and the reasons for it but that should not be the driving force behind how you describe them (in any case the Arabs & Turks consistently referred to them as Romans - and still do so in fact). And none of this

6117:

No, what they called themselves doesn't matter. If the entire world called the English "Saxony" then chances are that futured scholars would use that name. And finally, the Byzantine elite did end up recognising itself as "Hellenic", the only Byzantine body that would insist on being called "Roman"

6071:

Of course it matters! I am from England and therfore I see myself as English - if you decided to call me an something else that is your choice but it doesn't change the fact that I am English. As for original research - I don't think so - every book I've evr read on Byzantium states that it was the

5856:

As for the first use of the 'Byzantine' name by Chalcondyles, it wasn't me who claimed it, so you can remove it if you want. The Oxford History of Byzantium however states that Wolf's use of the term was due to his wish to stress the Empire succession to a Classical Greek past. I removed the POV in

5738:

Recent intelligent (and, crucially, well-written) works on the demise of the Western Roman Empire have been written by Bryan Ward Perkins (The fall of Rome and the end of civilisation) and Peter Heather (The fall of the Roman Empire). Both of these are excellent, well written history books, and are

5697:

This is what I don't understand about you Roydosan - You claim you have no intentions to Latinize yet you still believe the Universalism of the Roman Empire was maintained into the Byzantine Empire. What I am maintaining is this, someone can be ethnically Greek, but still have the umbrella identity

5583:

Byzantines, like Greeks today, where a polyonymus people, and that means they had more than one name to represent them. "Romans" and "Greeks" where used interchangibly in the middle ages for Byzantines, each with equal weight. Latins only returned to the use of "Romania" and "Romans" because of the

5428:

We keep having this same discussion. See "The Empire of the Greeks" section above, for example. The Byzantines called themselves Romans, some of their neighbours called them Romans, some of their neighbours called them Greeks, and now we call them Byzantines. It's not that difficult, and basically,

5400:

I agree with your comments about the break up of the empire completely althgough I would say the exact date is debatable. But I disagree that the Byzantine empire cannot be the same political entity as the old Roman empire. It may have changed almost beyond recognition but that is called progress -

5374:

The same can be said of Korea (North and South) and Germany (East and West). In the first, both are equal inheritors of old Korea. The second case is even a better example: West Germany was widely considered (and the Germans also believed in it!) the "better" inheritor of the Old Germany instead of

4958:

Personally, I would prefer for both English and Greek terms to match the meaning. That is, display in both languages simultaneously either what it was called at its time or what it's called now. Or at least clarify somehow that Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Empire or the Romans) is not the Greek translation of

4929:

There is evident for Byzantine Theater in the early Byzantine period up until the advent of the iconoclastic period. As far as I know, the scholarly debate on the issue is whether certain aspects of Byzantine literature should be regarded as theatrical after this point. As for the period before the

4908:

Does any know if there were theatrical plays in Byzantium? I think there was some controversy on the matter: some claimed that Byzantines only had religious representations, others that these representations were complicated enough to be regarded as art. If anyone knows sthg on the matter, it might

4383:

Someone has been changing the spellings of words in the sections I wrote for the 'Golden era', 'Collapse into Anarchy', 'The Comneni and the Crusaders', and 'Twelfth century prosperity, art & culture'. I wrote the sections in British English; they were changed to U.S. English. I strongly object

4342:

the land can support. It's not about birth rates, it's just about how many people exist in a certain area. You said that "Albanians, Bulgarians and Turks are irrelevant to the people in question, as they have always had independent cultural and ethnic identities". That would be true if I was trying

3959:

In the eleventh century, changes began that would eventually undermine the Byzntine economy. The Italians acquired silk worms, reducing the value of the imperial monopoly. The crusades altered the trade routes to the advantage of the Italian city-states. Territorial gains by the Turks in Asia Minor

3299:

All very interesting, but what is the word's etymology? It doesen't say. More importantly, the impression the reader receives is that choosing between 'Roman' or 'Byzantine' is merely a matter of terminology. It fails to emphasize the qualitative difference between the Roman Empire of antiquity and

2973:

I suppose the reasoning for not including "Byzantine Empire" is that its already in the main title, and the infobox should be for native terminology. I also dont understand why the latin title needs to be kept. There was no such thing as "official language" in the Roman empire, and if there were it

2946:

It literally means "of the Romans", yes (Roman Empire would literally be Imperium Romanum). I don't know what they called themselves in Latin, but in Greek they usually just called the empire "Romania" and the emperor was "emperor of the Romans." This is all kind of silly, it would probably be most

2895:

I have done a lot of reading on the empire - in fact I just read Norwich's condensed history of the entire period - and I was surprised to then read this Knowledge article on how it was a Greek state. Never heard that perspective, and I think there is an element of truth about it, but I don't agree

2627:

A large part of the Balkan, Italian and Asian (non-Asia Minor) territories were organized into Ducates or Protectorates, technixally part of the empire, but in practice independent states meant to protect inner lands. Citizenship was not extended to the conquered territories, so the Bulgars, Serbs,

2554:

The significant change in the empire's territory occured at the 7th century, which then gave rise to the nationalist movement. The first surviving reports of a conscious nationalist awareness date from the 9th century, which lie in par with parallel developments in Western Europe, so it really isnt

2424:

multi-ethnic? An Empire by definition is conquering foreign nations and therefore has many ethnic groups, period. The point here is which ethnic group (if any) is in charge of the empire. In that case it's the Greeks, who also happen to be the majority (but that doesn't really matter) and since the

2358:

Those are not very strong counter-arguments. First of all the term "Empire" itself is by definition an expanding state where one ethnic group dominates over others, therefore the term "multi-ethnic empire" sounds bizarre. Therefore it doesn't make sense to point out how many non-Greek ethnic groups

2344:

from the work of a known, though old, Byzantine scholar, August Heisenberg (Sources and studies of late byzantine history: Collected work, 1974), who defined Byzantine civilization: "Byzantium is the Roman state of the Greek nation, that became Christian". A more recent scholar, George Ostrogorsky,

2321:

The Greekness of the empire was not questioned. The original editor, Theathenae, edited the opening sentence of the article on the grounds that the byzantines, and any medieval people for that matter, would have been incapable of identifying themselves as members of a nation, apparently because the

2317:

A paradox arises from that: If the empire became Greek only in towards the end, and given that only Greeks speak Greek, how could the empire have been Greek-speaking for its entire history? The empire had in fact become Greek as early as the 7th century, after a series of Arab and Lombard invasions

1694:

Even if Eastern Roman Empire was the more common usage, Byzantine or a similar greek sounding name would be more appropriate. Calling the empire roman does not indicate the evolution from roman to greek that occured. Honestly I sympathize with you, the romantic part of me wants to agree and think

1676:

The entire article is extremely enlightening and was a pleasure to read. The question of the name seems to me somehow important. Reading the article, it seems that the appropriation of the name 'Roman' by the West is one of the great con jobs of history. We seem to accept the great ripoff as a fait

1358:

of those minorities. The army was always the chief integrational mechanism, and all Armenians that entered government achieved it through the army, but that still doesnt take into account that Armenians maintained their own seperate national conscience, that remained alive even after they were left

628:

The "isolated opinion" to which I referred was that "'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous," and nothing else. Miskin's description of the translation as "extremely ridiculous" were then based on the idea that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman, which he later explained was because

260:

the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself, hence the need to use an exonym. No single scholar refers to this state simply as the "Roman Empire", and trust me but they have their reasons not to. Just use the same names that the scholar use and get over this template-title search once and for

6810:

In any case when Charlemagne was crowed the emperor of the Romans, the pope coined the Byzantine emperor as the 'Emperor of the Greeks', and eventhough he received many insults in return, the title remained in official use until the fall of Constantinople. The Eastern part of the Roman empire that

6772:

What I'm beginning to find strange, is why Roydosan is just SO persistant, and SO determined to forge a universalism out of the Byzantine Empire when by the early 7th century (a conservative educated guess as far as the extent of hellenization goes), the Empire was Greek ethnically and culturally.

6726:

For sure - that's why it should refer to the Byzantine empire throughout but state that it was the continuation of the Roman empire - which the opening para already does. What I object to principally is the reference to "St Constantine" - this is POV as only the Orthodox regard him as a saint (see

6560:

When did I ever deny this Roydosan? I don't understand what do you find so extreme about my edits. You're practically accusing me for things I've never claimed. You're coming up with arguments against the claim that this article should be renamed to "medieval Greece" something extreme that I never

6489:

We're calm. The person who cussed was an anonymous editor. As a response to Roydosan's comment: Not that it's mentioned anywhere in the article, but the "Empire" did become almost a Greek nation-state after 1204. Anyway I don't understand why are you getting all mental because it is mentioned that

6338:

No they are most definitely not - they are treated quite separately - I studied the Byzantine Empire at school & uni and it was never grouped with Greek history it was always distinct on it's own. This is getting ridiculous - the article should be NPOV and historically accurate. As it is it is

5632:

You've posted that link many times before my Latinizing friend, and I have read it, and I see nothing really substantial (hence his titling of his work 'ruminizations'), to suggest that your hypothesis the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire was thoroughly Latin up until the 12th Century. I could, if I

5307:

Try Greek scholars :). Seriously now, only now you have noticed that there is a Greek POV inside (about) this article? As far as I got it, the Greeks see themselves as direct descendants of the Byzantines and believe that the Byzantines were successors of the Romans and the ancient Greeks. This is

5178:

All emperors until 1453 styled themselves as Romans and their land Roman Empire, so by that reasoning there shoudnt be seperate articles for Roman and Byzantine empires in the first place, since they were one and the same. But for better or for worse it's an already widely accepted convention that

4633:

The empire in the second period was experiencing a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity, both in the countryside and in the cities, which were flourishing. Nevertheless it also had its fair share of problems. The political situation had become much more complex: the crusader states in the

4503:

I completely agree. However this needs to be done tactfully, because Macedonian's claim they are in fact direct descendants of Alexander the Great, who existed before the Roman empire even began. Possibly, a broad geographic term, and a map with present day political boundaries will be the best to

3450:

to this page, and I reverted it. A template isn't really such a bad idea (although the article already has the timeline infobox at the top) but this one needed some work. The problem, as I see it, is it's just too difficult to fill in the "Area", "Population" fields (since it varied greatly over

3412:

survived quite well till the death of Justinian (565), and started crumbling only after, WITHOUT the exception of Heraclius. And it cannot be forgotten that the Balkans were once again unified in 1018 and remained so till 1186, and that Greece was hardly a part of the Empire in much of the 7th and

3264:

The page has some great images, but they need a better layout as they make the page look cluttered. I also think we should remove the image "The Byzantine Empire in 1265 (William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, 1911)" because it is duplicate information from another map. The other map is consistent

3095:

Well, I won't hold to that, if you so consider, just note the correct translation. I don't want to enter a polemic or fight with any of you, therefore if I have offended any of you please forgive me. After all, as our Holy Church teaches us, the Empire of God is not of this world. But there may be

2647:

The problem with the opening sentense is that "Greek speaking" leaves room for misinterpretation, implying that others beside the Greeks may have lived within Byzantium speaking Greek, which simply isnt true. Since nationality is a verifiable medieval product, what's wrong with stating the obvious

2571:

Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as

2448:

There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even

2443:

But we are not calling them what they called themselves either, because the term "Romans" is obviously misleading. Since we're using a made-up terminology we might as well give it some value. In other words, what the Byzantines and many other medieval civilizations called themselves is irrelevant.

2373:

1854:

I'dd be honoued to take up task. I'm comfortable in the vernacular and an avid artist. Do you think if would be preferable to have these done in digital format (i.e. with a computer assisted design) or to have them hand drawn? How big is the list? You could either send it to me via e-mail or on my

1780:

The Byzantines themselves were Greeks not Romans, and that makes a tiny big difference. Of course the real Latin-speaking Romans as an ethnic group were already extinct, and the term "Roman" became a title of nobility (in a way). But then again the Latins of the middle-ages were the enemies of the

1684:

As for 'Byzantine', it may be the accepted historical term but it only came into use centuries after the Empire it describes ceased to exist. In a modern age where the name a country gives itself is a matter of great sensitivity, the gross injustice of calling an Empire a name completely different

1182:

The map provided is not good enough. I don't think it is representative of the true breadth of the Byzantines. The map, taken as a snapshot in 1265, was when the empire was in steep decline. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 also quite literally ripped the guts out of the empire. So a map when

1123:

I agree that semantic digressions are inappropriate in this article. I did not add them; I merely corrected the romanization of Greek terms or names which were introduced into the article by other contributers. Not mentioning the Greek name of Constantinople, or the Greek title of the emperor, is

435:

of the non-Byzantines at the time. In fact it is a frequent confusion in various medieval texts referring to the Byzantines both as Greeks and as Romans. Anyway the use of the POV, english-translated "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is honestly ludicrous on the template. WP policy should be respected by

427:

tendency to gradually favour the use of "Greek" over "Roman" after the first sack of Constantinople. Speaking of which, even the term "Greek Empire" would be closer to the truth than "Roman (Byzantine)". At least it wouldn't be an POV misinterpretation nor a derogatory exonym. The fact is that the

5998:

In a manner of speaking both. Firstly to emphasise the Byzantine empire as a Greek empire is to falsify history insofar as the Byzantines saw themselves quite clearly as Romans (and before anyone complains please understand that Roman does NOT mean Latin) - read the Alexiad of Anna Comnena if you

5987:

So wait a minute, does your objection regard the historical truth of the edits or their actual importance and position within the article? I'm getting confused and you have to make up your mind. Your edit summaries (POV in the head etc) would imply the first one, but now you claim the second. The

5824:

The information on the head comes from sources which I'm willing to directly cite in case of doubt. It is extremely important to point out how the Byzantine state was viewed by its contemporaries, i.e. a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire, if for no good

5462:

You are all overlooking the separation. As the old Roman Empire was divided it simply ended. First it turned into "a empire with two emperors", which is largely a ilusion. There were two full Roman empires, who even played the barbarians against each other. Then one state was conquered/ended. The

5183:

exist a Roman Empire and a Byzantine Empire, and Constantine the Great along with the foundation of Constantinople are considered the starting points of the Byzantine Empire(at least, as major ones). That isnt to say they represented any kind of diversion from the original Roman Empire. Byzantine

4919:

They most likely kept the tradition of tragedies and definitly influenced the masses in plays of heroes and events, much like the romans and the greeks before them and the europeans after them. The power of such a media would definitly have not gone unoticed by the cunning imperial mind. But like

4629:

The empire in the first period was suffering from hostile raiding, enemies on all sides and the disappearence of its great cities due to economic decline, enemy attack and general uncertainty and disruption. Nevertheless, its perilous position concealed some very real and important strengths. Its

3324:

It was Hieronumous Wolf that in 1562 published his work: «Corpus Byzantinae Historiae», where the term "Byzantine" is used for the first time to define the Empire and its citizens. And it was two centuries later, that mainly French scholars used this term much more widely and it started being the

3050:

Regarding the info box that place is for the OFFICIAL NAME of the country. In Greek it's Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. As Greek was the main language used in the Empire that will go first. Imperium Romanorum is the name in Latin and it means THE VERY SAME THING. Latin was widely used in a diglossy with Greek

2891:

I share your concerns, and agree, especially given my Greek backgroud and this naturally affects my pride (and hence bias). However, understand something: history is politics. And modern politicians use the past to achieve ends in the present and future, so that is why we need to tred a difficult

2484:

I never said that the Macedonian Emperors were Slavs. Slavs invaded and took over much of the Balkans (including much of mainland Greece) in the early 7th century. This area, still presumably inhabited by Slavs, was reconquered by the Macedonian Emperors. Meaning that there were a ton of Slavs

2457:

nation. Basil I was of Armenian origin but the majority of the Dynasty was pretty much Greek (Roman even). Secondly the cities of Greek Macedonia, neither in Byzantium neither in the Ottoman Empire, never maintained a significant Slavic population (especially not Thessaloniki). Actually the Slavs

1934:

Taking from the above mention of the heraldric termonology, I begun to think about the nature of the blazons. Where these from frankish(european) master heralds describing centuries old Byzantine banners, seals and shield markings (that may or may not have followed the european norms)? Or was the

1802:

It would be interesting to gather up the myriad of Byzantine heraldry. As its been noted, the template does suffer of a design based on a modern exemple. A thousand years of existance has given it multiple flags, motos and everything else that makes it a nation, as per our conception of the term.

1387:

Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks for your detailed answer. I do not dispute that a Greek Orthodox elite and a Greek Orthodox culture were dominant throughout the empire. My only remaining question would be whether "most" of the people in the giant Balkan and Anatolian territories of the Middle

1256:

Just wondered why the new qualifying language and interpolations about multiethnicity and multilanguage were removed. It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of

960:

I'm the person who mentioned them originally, and unfortunately haven't been here for a while, which is why I didn't respond. The Slavs never really conquered much of the Balkans, except in association with other invading peoples, most notably the Khazars but also the Avars and Bulgars (who were

890:

Many thanks for the revisions. The article looks much more informative now. I added some names to establish some empty links that I am planning to fill in the following days. The statement that the date of the invasion of Constantinople is one of the conventional dates for the beginning of modern

708:

Don´t translate that text, as it would only confuse the vast majority (but if you do, then add to the greek version "(Byzantine)"). This argument started with a misunderstandig (mea culpa). Let´s not continue a sterile discussion about the correctness of the term "Byzantine" or "Roman (Byzantine)

515:

I never said there was nothing Roman about it. I said that the vast majority of scholars don't use the term "Roman" to refer to it. It's good to have the Byzantine Empire in the disambiguation page of 'Roman', but it's not necessary to call it "Roman (Byzantine) Empire". The equivalent of Paul in

6687:

The same source does state that it's the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. The article even goes further and claims that it's the actual "Roman Empire during the middle ages" (a borderline OR definition) so I don't understand what are you complaining about. So far the head states that the

6553:

Modern Greeks call themselves "Hellenes," like the ancient Greeks did. The switch from "Romaioi" back to "Hellene," like the switch from "Vlach" to "Romanian," came from the politics of nationalism in modern times. Greeks needed Western European help to become independent in the early nineteenth

6002:

The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to educate not to perpetuate inaccuracies or give information at the lowest common denominator. True people are taught in schools that the Roman Empire ended in the 5th century - but that is no reason to take that line. The information they were given was

5976:

I don't think so. No-one is denying the Greekness of the empire but this is going too far. I've never heard any serious scholar make these claims. The unbroken continuation of the Graeco-Roman world the Byzantine empire might be but to describe it as the unbroken link to the Hellenistic world is

5734:

A very interesting page, despite the poor way in which it is written. The style of that article exemplifies perfectly the obfuscating style of academic writing, which enables the writer to hide behind dense terminology instead of explaining his or her ideas in plain English. I wish more academic

5458:

It does matter (and it isn't only my opinion). Roydosan acknowledges that the issue is a bit unclear and even answers it with a well studied answer and argumentation (unlike you). Eastern Romans were full Romans: I certainly agree with that. The Taiwanese are Chinese. 100% agreement here. What I

5144:

Don´t do it! To claim that Constatine the Great is the first Byzantine emperor is simply wrong. Constatine reunfied the whole Roman Empire and therefore is a Roman Emperor, he did not rule over any Byzantine empire (or eastern empire, whatever). He created another capital for the Roman empire at

4637:

Personally, I find it very difficult to decide between the two periods. They both had their strengths and weaknesses. However I feel that the overall position of the empire in the second period offered perhaps the greater potential for an emperor. But I would like to know whether others feel the

4156:

I like the book, it appears to me to be a good acurate and unbiased description of the Byzantine Empire. It is a summary: 170 pages, but is not too expensive 16£99 or 24$ 99. what I really like is the fact that it does not present the fall as something unavoidable and due for a totally abstract

3236:

The entire section is definately not plagiarised. I used Norwich as a source when I researched it, but based it mainly on internet material to get ideas on composing the section. The themes may cover ones Norwich used, but they are completely my own words. Actually to tell you the truth, I found

2524:

Also - on what basis do you claim that westerners called it the "Greek Empire" from the 4th century. I've never heard it called anything but the "Eastern Empire" or the "Roman Empire" at least up through the Justinian period (Justinian, recall, was a native Latin-speaker, as were his successors

1293:

The fact that Armenians resided within the Byzantine Empire does not erase their own existing national identity, which is also true for the Armenians that resided outside the empire (the so called armenian buffer state). To quote Armenian area specialist Nina G. Garsoian (The Problem of Armenian

426:

You're contradicting yourself. You are accusing me for passing a POV and yet you admit that you prefer to use a term which is NOT used by the majority of the contemporary scholars. As for my "POV" on the Byzantine Empire not being ethnically a Roman Empire, this is simply proved by the Byzantine

6735:

No - when the Pope crowned Charlegmagne he was attempting to restore the empire in the West. He was then regarded as the equal of the emperor in Constantinople but not his rival. In any case the Byzantines regarded him as nothing more than a barbarian. Hectorian I don't think you get what I was

6464:

I feel exactly this way about you. I for one have no intention of denying the Greekness of the empire. What I object to is that this identity is expanded way over everything else to the exclusion of what the Byzantines themselves saw their empire as. Anyone looking at this article would get the

6013:

So how does the argument "what the Byzantines recognised themselves" have to do with anything? Do you think that Mycenaean Greeks called themselves "Greek"? You're just about to admit that your edits are based on original research. What concerns wikipedia is what modern scholars think, which is

5703:

I hope for all our sakes that you stop this petty argument, I am willing to offer the olive branch if you are willing to reciprocate. We are all here to improve Byzantine articles, and we all mostly share a love of the subject - This is all that is needed for articles about Byzantine History to

5555:

But what did Rome stem from, and why did many Romans acknowledge the cultural superiority of Greece? Nobody is referring to it as a Greek Nation state. Let's just get that out of the way. But.... It was by a large majority of it's populace in the Balkans and Asia Minor 'Greek' ethnically, their

5198:

The Byzantine Empire is a modern interpretation to help us digest the enormity of the Roman Empire, just like how we use Augustus as the point where we seperate the Roman republic and the Roman Empire. They are just different stages of the lifecycle of a continuing power. Modern America is very

4998:

To comment my recent removal of Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων / Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία: In the context of the whole sentence, the first is wrong. Basileía twn Rhwmaíwn is what the inhabitants called their state themselves; the opening sentence, though, states that "Byzantine Empire is the modern name of the

3674:

Perhaps this is my bias as an historian, but when writing about extinct states, what exactly should we focus on if not its history? How can you possibly have any understanding about it if not in the context of its historical framework? I believe the flaw is actually with the other articles; the

3646:

I disagree that this article should be deFAced. Considering the significant recent improvements to the article, including new maps and enormously expanded coverage of several crucial aspects of the empire's history, I think the article is currently much better than it was when it was originally

3394:

Byzantium never really maintained its hold on most of Balkan territory, not even in its early centuries after the Fall of Rome until Basileus Heraclius. Byzantine lands were limited to Greek speaking territories such as Greece proper and Asia Minor, and so whatever form of nationalism developed

3098:

Also, Miskin, I didn't take offense in a personal way. At least I'm not taking anymore. But it is rather offensive in a general way. And the explanation about the meaning of the name is for you. It's not misleading, it is correct. The Greeks considered themselves Romans at that time. As for the

2746:

With the exception of "Greek-Orthodox", the other terms presuppose the existence of non-Greek groups of comparable population to the Greeks, which we've already established isnt true, making the idea of "leading" or "dominating" over something negeligible, a moot point. "Greek-Orthodox, already

2595:

Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. - As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it obviously was. Even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially

1456:

Decius, while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think that a) you need to calm down, and back down a bit; and b) that we need to make our article titles correspond to usage, not to ideal usage. Now, it seems to me that English usage has been a bit towards the term "Eastern Empire" rather than

1265:

I'm sorry if I have offended you by editing the article but the picture promoted of Byzantium as a cultural amalgamation by Runciman and his followers falls short of the truth. More recent scholarship has proved that even in its early centuries Byzantium was more Greek than previously believed,

1098:

It would be useful, of course, to give the Greek and romanized-Greek versions of names on the appropriate pages, but I'm not going to campaign to get everything moved to romanized Greek spellings for the emperors' names, when the Latinized ones are established in usage. (I'm busy trying to fix

923:

Empress Irene and her incapability drove the Empire to very bad and almost catastrophic external and internal situations. She tried to face the economic and defensive problems that she created by subjecting the Roman Empire to western feuds and the Papacy. To my humble opinion her marriage with

121:

I've been reading some of the comments on this discussion page, and I see that there seems to be demand for more maps to illustrate the long and vary varied history of the Byzantine Empire. The size and shape of the empire changed hugely across the centuries, so I have added two new maps to the

6792:

Anonymous please sign your name for the sake of clarity, and try to be more civil. Don't get too excited with this thing, it's only about the article on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone who wants to really educate himself will read some books and will soon find out the reality that

6617:

It was a continuation of the Hellenistic culture in terms of language, intellectual life, music and even military among other things. The line between terms such as "Greco-Roman" and "Hellenistic" is very thin, some scholar would argue that the Greco-Roman World was not much different than the

3941:

Although I'm not disputing the truth of these observations, in their current form they may be slightly misleading. Since we know that the period of the crusades, the twelfth century, was a time of great economoic prosperity in Byzantium, the image of a general decline beginning in the eleventh

3430:

I have made many changes to the Byzantine Empire article and one of those changes entailed the placing of a more accurate picture of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 A.D. I tried to maintain the previous picture that I am now trying to replace, but it just would not appear on the article. Strange.

3130:

that was spoken in the Western part of the empire at the time. For that reason in his 'Novellae' he wrote: "ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν, είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας". That means "We didn't write the law in our

2601:

is an ambiguous term, which can mean either "race" or "culture" or both. In the case of Byzantium, the empire undoubtebly is held to be multi-ethnic, in that is was comprised of a variety of peoples of comparable population, up and until the reign of Heraclius when most of ancient Roman empire

2306:

But doesn't that only apply to the Palaeologus period of the empire, when it was relatively small and only had Greeks living in it anyway? Certainly the previous 800 years cannot fit into this arrangement. Yes, the empire is essentially Greek in language, culture, religion, etc, for its entire

214:

Wtf! The following argument about naming of the empire is one of the most meaningless arguments ever. It seems to me that first, there existed the Roman Empire. Then it was divided into Western and Eastern Roman Empire. In this article, we are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire. In current

6308:

It seems I'm getting words put in my mouth and being labelled what I am not. As for the Rum, I wasn't contesting anything, mearly stating that Rum was a derivative of Rome / roman, like you stated above. Your original post was less clear and I simply posted the semantic link. I dont have the

5811:

Also, there is a problem in the opening paragraphs of the article. It goes way too far in stressing the Greekness of the empire, being repetitive to the point of pedantry. The "identity" and "the term Byzantine empire" sections cover comprehensively enough the point, so why does it need to be

5362:

After that, we have two empires: the eastern and the western one. BOTH of them are Roman, but NEITHER of them are the "old" Roman Empire. To claim that the Western Roman Empire was the the "old" Roman Empire is wrong (old western view), and simply neglects/ignores the eastern counterpart, AND

5187:

There is an inherent problem in the definition of "Byzantine" since it presupposes a rejection of "Romanity", which is self-refuting. Byzantine means the same thing as Roman, only for a different time period. So the problem lies in pin-pointing the changeover from Roman to Byzantine, which is

3179:

I am not particularly attached to the sentence, so change it if you want (yes, I wrote it). However, what I mean is that it is hard to list the contributions the Byzantine Empire made to society, because it was a cultural empire that has been lost in time - with its legacy absorbed into other

2142:

I added the copyright notices on the images themselves because I got tired of seeing my maps on one certain Knowledge clone that claimed they owned the copyrights for them (fortunately that site is compliant with the GFDL nowadays). But anyway, I still own the copyright for the maps even if I

2005:

I see them as well. That said, it seems to me we should have some maps covering the appearance of the empire between 565 and 1180...one in the early 8th century, showing the effects of the Arab, Slavic, and Lombard incursions, and one in the early 11th century, showing the recovery under the

1286:

granted citizenship to all races does not mean it provided for the development of a pluralist society, which was defined by the aggregate of national traits. That would amount to partiallity because the influence of Greeks was disproportionaly greater than that of other peoples ever since the

6825:

While the statement is true in itself, it is one-sided: the Medieval Greek Empire is the heir of the merged Christian Greco-Roman culture of (Late) Antiquity, and so both sides belong here. It was, imho, not the "continuation" of the Hellenistic world proper (which had been absorbed into the

5370:

Let me give you two examples we can follow (strain your brains boys): The history of the USA, Korea, and Germany. With the American seccesion the "South" separated from the "North". Now let's disregard the "rights" or "wrongs", the labels like "rebels" or "unionists". Let us imagine that the

5285:

I've noticed a singular trend in his edits to try and Latinize Greek History (much like Bishop does). I've reverted his edits back as I believe the previous mentions of a Greek Orthodox state of Constantine and other allusions to it's largely Greek nature are not 'pov' but generally accepted

4733:

I fixed that up a bit, although I see now it's in the Origin of the Name part too. It's not quite that simple though, maybe my elaboration was helpful...in the west they tended to call them Greeks when they were trying to be pejorative, as you said, but a more neutral name was the "Empire of

3320:

Byzas was the name of the King Of Megara. Megara is situated to the north of Athens. Byzas was a sea explorer and founded a colony opposite Chalkidona, another colony of people from Megara, in 658BC. This new location offered much better geostrategic position, and it was named after himself:

2551:

Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's

1681:-- and the Westerners who later tried to lay claim to the name are in a sense usurpers. In legal terms, they tried to rip off someone else's inheritance! (As a completely irrelevant aside one recalls the oft-quoted comment that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.) 1308:

This was the basis of Fallmerayer's theory of the bastardization of the modern Greek nation, whose blood supposedly was permanently lossed after centuries of repeated Slavic settlements. His theory though has long been rejected and his claims refuted. Slavic conquests into Greece proper were

98:

In reality, the theme system was already insufficient at the end of 11th century. You see, mid-11th century saw the emergence of two new type of professional warriors - nomadic horse archer (like that of the Seldjucks) and heavy horse spearman (like Norman knights). Facing these two types of

6500:

Septentrionalis has a long history of trying to pass POV into Greek history-related articles and of following me around. I refuse to debate with a person who thinks that including nazi theories into wikipedia enforces the NPOV policy. That's just the easy way, calling someone names (such as

4968:

In the context that the Empire is presented in the first line, the greek translation fits. Although I would perfer to also have the term used by the Byzantine themselves in greek rather than the translation (So as to reduce the number of passer-by who would mistakenly beleive that Βυζαντινή

2470:

exist, and the non-Greek ethnic groups that existed within the empire were in fact considered ethically foreigners to the "Byzantine" nation. The fact that ethnic distinctions such as "Armenians, Arvanites, Bulgars, Slavs, Turks" existed within the Empire, proves that there actually was a

6618:

Hellenistic, so you're really applying your personal interpretation of those terms there. Nobody spoke of ethnic identities, of course Greek identity was merged with the Roman in the Greco-Roman world, but that's irrelevant to its cultural heritage. This of course, is a referenced claim.

2345:

on the same issue said: "Roman administration, Greek civilization and Christian faith are the three main sources of Byzantine evolution." Since then, other scholars, more specialized in the field, such as Helen Ahrweiler, quoted in the main article, were also crystal clear on the issue.

978:

Interesting to know about Khazars, though. I know about Avars (word Avar, i heard, gave origin to word "olbrzym" meaning big, huge man) but i never, in any historic book i had read, had heard about Khazars cooperating with Slavs. I always thought they were limited to northern steppes.

5006:

What the Empire called itself, is mentioned later on, and in the Infobox, as well (where it is right, as it translates "Roman Empire"). The opening sentence doesn't speak at all about what the "Byzantines" called themselves, and to translate a term they didn't even use makes no sense.

924:

Charlemagne would never be approved internally and it would led to a civil war. Most probably Irene would have been excommunicated by the Patriarch and she would left the imperial court. As for Charlemagne this was the only way to assert a legitimate grasp over his imperial ambitions.

2705:

tongue and not a second language. In the same way English-speaking refers to that person for whom English is first language, not second. In danger of stating the obvious, no people other than Greeks spoke Greek. Which is why "Greek-speaking" is a paradox and should be reverted back.

1879:

I'll begin in a square flag template, from there is canbe modified to fit in a shield or crest. Once they are done I'll post link here, unless we deign it reasonnable to start up an article on the blazons. I have a few emblems used by the thematic troops, I'll see about posting them

3555:) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy history with a small section on other areas under 'Legacy and importance' heading. At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see 1843:

I have a list of names of Byzantine nobility and their heraldic arms, but this is written in heraldic terminology; and I haven't been able to track down any visual depictions of them. I'd be happy to post it here for someone who can translate a heraldic description into a drawing.

939:

Minor question: Were Khazars really overhelming most of Balkany? I always thought that far more important were Slavic invasion which overhelmed most of Blakany, and nevr heard about Khazars doing that.. Any eason why Khazars and Lombards are mentioned and Slavic invasion is not?

5923:

Honestly I'm being puzzled by some of your remarks. I thought it was obvious to everybody that the use of "Saint Constantine" reflected the Byzantine POV. If you think that it tries to brainwash the reader then by all means rephrase it. That was not at all however my intention.

3451:

the 1000 year history), "Establishment", "First Emperor" fields (since there is no real dividing line between the "Byzantine" and "Roman" Empires). And to put Preceding State as Roman Empire is sort of misleading as well. Plus, there is already plenty of maps on this page. --

897:

Thanks for making the article in the first place, I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise, though Byzantium's one of my favorite civilizations. The comment was missing simply because I forgot to rework it in. I've added it, plus a note on urban life I forgot to make.

5463:

state that remained could claim all it wanted, it wasn't accepted and it simply wasn't the "old" Roman Empire. Unlike West Germany it didn't absorb the other half. The Byzantine Empire was powerful, civilized, longlasting, succesful, and certainly more than worthy. But still a

952:

Ok, i asked two times, wait a long time, so i changed Khazars to Slavs. I don't know anything about Khazars overhelming whole Balkans. But i know that Slavs invaded Byzantine empire and _they_ conquered whoel Balkans. So i guess someone just made a mistake, so i corrected it.

2724:

indicates only the empire's language, which is obvious to all anyway since only one major group inhabited its territories. In the same way you dont need to mention the language of the Holy Roman Empire is you can establish before hand its medieval Germany your talking about.

2635:

The only difference between medieval and modern nationalism is that today it is attached to the state. Medieval kingdoms could legitimately expand their territories into foreign nations while today the right of every nation to rule itself is considered universal and supreme.

6459:

No because it is quite logical if you follow the history. There is no inconsistency in this if you understand that the Roman empire greatly changed over the course of it's 2206 year history. Changes in language and culture are to be expected over such a long period of time.

1363:

Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to

797:

name, of this article is "Byzantine Empire". Most of the ppl (here in wikipedia) know that the term byzantine was invented. As far as we (here in Knowledge) know, the majority of comtemporary scholars do use that term allthough it is "wrong" (and indeed scholars admit that

4171:

good documentation on Byzantine economy is very scarce: legal text refer to new concepts with centuries-old names, documents are centered on the capital, the monachal texts are often biased to praise or attack certain emperors. And economics was not very glamourous at the

496:

Greek. I brought up Paul as an example of someone who was ethnically Jewish yet still politically a Roman, to disprove the notion that ethnicity has anything to do with the location and nature of the Empire. If not Italian, which ethnicity did you have in mind, anyway?

3607:). One way or another, this needs to decide what it is and adapt, as currently it is a confusing hybrid of history and former state article types. If no changes are made, I am afraid it should be deFAced, as it is substandard comapred to our newer FAs (mentioned above).-- 283:

expressing these two truths—that the empire in question is in fact the same empire as that founded at Rome and that there is nevertheless a categorical distinction based on geography and other historical factors. (Not all scholars use "Byzantine Empire," by the way.) —

3214:

I'm not sure about this entire section. It seems familiar somehow, especially the sentence about "Robert Byron, one of the first great 20th century Philhellenes..." Isn't that from Norwich's book (at the end, I think)? Could somebody check to see if this section is

132:

The map "The Byzantine Empire under Basil II, c.1025AD" is inacurrate, it shows Croatian medieval kingdom, which was independent in 1025, as a part of the Empire. Actually, only the coastal region was sometimes under the rule of the Byzantines since Slavs came to the

2674:

was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your

1939:? Or mayhaps it had its origins in the Byzantine lands all along and was brought to europe by the returning mercenaries? These are of course very open to discusion and I invite anyone with knowledge on the origins of coat of arms to post, be it for theories or facts. 595:

I really hope that plain old truth is valued here. Look ASDamick we allready agreed that Roman (Byzantine) Empire is the most apropiate name. This whole discussion started as you answered: "Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was

5529:

However, Knowledge is not for Byzantologists or Roman Historians, it's for the everyman. The everyman DOES immediately associate Latin and Roman, it's just something that's embedded largely because of the fact Byzantium has always been ignored as far as education

4947:

Now the first line says it is "Byzantine Autokratoria" in Greek...but isn't that just a modern Greek translation of "Byzantine Empire"? I thought the point with the previous Greek text, "Basileia Romaion", was to state what they called it at the time (in Greek).

4447:

Thats strange, British english (Commonwealth) is the prevailing and official english dialect. Of course the foremost spell checks are made via Microsoft Word, this editor may have unlearnt his english to conform to an American english default setting. "On to the

5523:

What Roydosan points out is elementary to anyone who has even read just one basic scholarly work on The Roman Empire, that is, the Universalism (even before the Constitutio Antoniana), which existed primarily between Hellenistic East and some areas of the Latin

2348:

In light of the above, could someone explain how is nationality absent from Byzantium or the middle ages in general, and why is calling the Byzantine empire a state of the Greeks such a misdirection? Especially when contemporaries didnt mind calling it as such?

3675:

fragmenting of information is a problem throughout Knowledge, probably because of the fetish about increasing the article count, I don't know. In any case I do agree with cleaning it up, especially the legacy part; I tried to list it on FARC awhile ago myself.

3321:

Byzantion. When Constantine the Great moved the capital city of the Roman Empire, he decided to build it around this ancient colony of Byzas. However, the name Byzantine and Byzantium was never the name that people of that time would use to call themselves.

3279:"Standardization of the term did not occur until the 17th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu..." Montesquieu is an 18th-century author. Was the term standardized by a previous writer, in the 17th century? I'm not competent to fix this myself. -- 6782:

The Western Europeans have no right to take our Middle Ages history, they have ignored it or defamed it for the past 300 years, now as we see more interest being taken up in Byzantine studies, they want to claim they were a part of it. No, sorry, you can't.

5735:

writers had both the will and the ability to write in ordinary language. Sadly, it is a skill that is lacked by many of them. Still, though it is laced with waffle the article does bring up some interesting points about the cultural evolution of Byzantium.

4984:

I actually meant to use either one term or the other. Using both would be too much too fast. Preferably "Byzantine" could go in the opening sentense, and Basileia Romaiwn above the infobox. Either way is fine by me, so long as both arent squeezed together.

4713:

started off an derigatory term so that the Frankish Empire could claim "Imperium Graecorum", but it became the standard exonym of the state. If a Byzantine called himself "Roman" in a foreign language, they wouldn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

3491:

I (personal opinion , but I hope that you agree) do think that the infobox being wholly "inside" of the article only confused and scared (it scarred me) ppl away from any antempt to improve it (and to improve the articles is what Knowledge is all about).

2632:

Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary

477:

Yeah. But that's only because the word "Italian" didn't exist neither as an ethnicity nor as a collective term until some 1200 years later maybe, and "Roman" didn't ever imply "Italian" before 1870. Anyway I don't see what's that got to do with anything.

1532:

It's not misleading at all, "Byzantine" in this sense is used as a formal name. "Eastern Roman" can be used alongside this as an alternate name, but it sounds kind of archaic or poetic. If you can remember those books you read, that would help I suppose.

915:

I suggest adding something about the Empress Irene and the Carolingians. Also --and I say this in all seriousness -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FEUDAL? Just wondering, since this term is misused so frequently and context changes according to time and place...

6465:

impression that the Byzantine empire was a Greek nation state. This is what I object to above all. It is re-writing history! no matter what authors you can misquote to back up your POV this view is a travesty of history and completely in breach of NPOV.

5806:

The relation between the word "Byzantine" and Laonicus Chalcondyles is a first for me. Academic consensus credits Hieronymus Wolf for introducing it to historiography. Could you please cite a passage or a work of Laonicus where he makes use of it before

1329:

The Isaurians were considered barbarians or at least Romans of barbaric origins that lived well into the empire. Zeno the Isaurian was forced to change his name into Greek and a great deal of his pains during his reign were due to his Isaurian origins.

777:

Why we don’t use the Greek, and the two most common terms of describing the historical period: Byzantine and Eastern Roman. Perhaps in brackets, we should say "Also known as the Eastern Roman Empire" directly underneath the Greek and 'Byzantine Empire'

6639:

Even with non-Greek Byzantines they still changed their names upon assuming high office to Greek names because despite the presence of non-Greek minorities (armenians for example), these people had long since been assimilated into Hellenistic Culture.

1516:

You are using an example that is misleading: in certain contexts, "Byzantine" is simply an easier adjective to use (i.e. "Byzantine studies", a "Byzantine ship"), but when it comes to the official name of an article, there is no need to use shorthand.

6133:

is original research - it is just stating what every book on Byzantium worth it's salt will state - that the Byzantine empire was the continuation of the Roman empire and that it's inhabitants called themselves Romans. That is not my POV, that is not

5580:

title, aka "Romans", was carefully upheld, after 1204 it was ignored since the ultimate goal of political predominance was already achieved. Constantinople was conquered and a puppet empereror installed by the Latins ruled as "Emperor of the Romans".

2739:

of the Orthodox Churches. Non-Byzantines where granted autocephalous status for their own Churches while the Greeks maintained their ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople for themselves - itself, more proof that Byzantines and Greeks identified.

3265:

with other pictures, hence providing better comparison. And the map is a little hard to read, and needs to be zoomed in to understand it. As the picture exists on many other Knowledge articles, I think it will do no harm to remove it. Anyone agree?

4070:

and I don´t think that it describes accuretly the byzantine economy. Having said that, I am not a expert about Byzantium and in fact I don´t have that particular book 'Byzantine Civilisation' by Runciman (I have others, like "Byzantium a history"

3207:

The Roman Empire of the East was founded on Monday 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday 29 May 1453 - although it had already come into being when Diocletian split the Roman Empire in 286, and it was still alive when Trebizond finally fell in

2106:

If you follow the links to their licenses on Wikimedia Commons, you'll see that the userid who uploaded them is extremely similar to that of the person whose name is in the copyright notices. He seems to have placed them under the GFDL himself.

4384:

to this arbitrary cultural imperialism. I do not change articles written by U.S. English speakers to British English, and I am angry that someone should force their national preferences on others. Have some respect, and leave other's work alone.

1781:

Byzantines, so again it doesn't make sense unless you draw a line between Roman and Byzantine Empires. Of course it's wise to point out their strong cultural and historical links and characterise Byzantium as an authentic Roman successor state.

6648:

In fact I have argued to the contrary trying to get away from the concept that Roman=Latin - and before you say it Miskin this is not original research on my part but what several scholars have already stated. I have linked the articles above.

6751:

phrase in the opening paragraph. it is sourced, historically accepted and not disputed by the majority of scholars. furthermore, i would suggest (for the sake of accuracy) to include in the beginning of the article, before the contents (as in

3367:

It was Greek - there was never a slavic language that was used in the business of the empire from what I understand. Norfolk says the founder of the dynasty was Armenian, although there is contention on this point. This pro-Macedonian website

2212:

My only reservation for not explaining its usage directly in the disambiguation page was size. The text was three paragraphs long, far too much for a disamb page. And there's always the possibility that someone might further it in the future.

6102:

Not if it is verified. Any serious book on Byzantium acknowledges the fact that it was the unbroken continuation of the Roman Empire. That is fact - it is not my opinion. As for Anna Comnena it is not my personal interpretation. Try reading

2572:

Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on.

6216:

And a last comment for those who tried to remove the facts about the Greekness of the Byzantine Empire: the Byzantine studies are listed as part of the Greek History lessons in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc etc, and

2511:

As to whether Salonica was Slavic in the 15th century, I really wasn't sure - certainly it was not a terribly Greek city by the beginning of the 20th century, and, as I noted, there were Slavs all over the place starting in the 7th century.

3161:

By preserving the ancient world, and forging the medieval, the Byzantine Empire's influence is hard to truly grasp. However, to deny history the chance to acknowledge its existence, is to deny the origins of Western civilization as we know

686:

If you are discussing the translation of the Greek text at the top of the Timeline-template; since the Greek text reads "Roman Empire", then obviously that should be the translation. No matter if the most commonly used term is "Byzantine".

2537:

It's ironic that you mention Justinian as an example of a native Latin-speaker. Justinian wrote Novellae in Greek, excusing himself for using the mother language of his own and of the Empire (Greek) instead of the father language (Latin).

869:

Erm...people, Mr. Bishop removed the speculation about the Yarmuk thing in early history. Well, all right, I suppose that information does not belong in a that part of the article. Perhaps I should move it to the Battle of Yarmuk page?

6539:

This is the truth no matter how unpalatable it is to you. And it is not my partisan POV, it is grounded in historical truth. Unlike the fallacy that the Byzantine empire was the continuation of pre-Roman Greece which you stated earlier.

5036:, this is how others name that country at the moment). the name we use is in the parenthesis, this way it must be in this article, since this is how the empire was called by its inhabitants. The same 'disorder' u can see in contemporary 1115:, but in this article the standard form should be used without comment, since this is not an article about Greek etymology. Likewise with "valiseios" and "aftokrator" etc. This kind of semantic digression doesn't belong in this article. 1089:

That's why I didn't embark on a wholesale moving of emperors to the Greek spellings! ;) The only things I altered (unless I got carried away somewhere...) were where Greek words or names were directly cited—for example, the quasi-Latin

3113:

Justinian was not a native Latin speaker as he was born and raised in the Eastern part of the Empire. He learned Latin by being a member of a "royal" bloodline and eventually by becoming a Roman Emperor. His native language however was

1491:

Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage, and it has the advantage of being more accurate. Think about it. I don't know why you are so much in support of the Byzantine term, just because it is somewhat more common in English usage.

5363:

vice-versa. The Western Roman empire fell quickly, and the Eastern Roman Emperors and the Byzantine people claimed to be (and certainly felt themselves) inheritors of the Western and thus the "Old" Empires. They believed to be Romans.

5459:

don't agree is that the Eastern Roman Empire is the SAME political entity as the "old" Roman Empire. Taiwan isn't China, despite any "empty" claims they make (and by now most of the ppl there want full independence, not unification).

5145:

Constantinople thats true, but does that make him a Byzantine emperor? Certainly not. Who was the first Byzantine emperor? It would be the same to ask when was the Byzantine empire founded. Noone can give you a good answer for that.

5253:. Could this be expanded to include the other Byzantine topics, such as the army, navy, certain leaders and cities, etc.? Right now, it's not even linked at this main article. A better Byzantine template would ease in navigation. -- 5638:

about the friction between native Greeks and foederati in the Army. So if you want to argue with what is generally a consensus among scholars as to when the Empire 'effectively became Greek as opposed to Latin', then please do so.

4437:

Hey, I always use proper spellings...although if this person is a fellow Canadian, then this is the second example I've seen of Canadians changing articles to American spellings. Maybe they don't teach Canadian spelling anymore...

5234:

For the sake of consistency, I will now change the names and links in the Byzantine Empire article to the new format. This is an ongoing process, and so I should point out that it may take some time for all links to be converted.

4426:

lol! My thanks to you for your support. Now let us march on the Canadian Parliament and the American White House with these fearsome battle-cries, and let us use them to strike fear into the hearts of our imperialist oppressors!

1636:

Who was saying that "Greeks were the minority" ? Greeks were one of the many ethnicities that comprised the Empire---that phrase doesn't imply that they were in the minority or the majority, it's just a statement of fact. As for

874:

Well I suppose it would be more appropriate there...but I don't think it belongs anywhere. You have no idea what would have happened if Yarmuk turned out differently. It's not our job to propose alternate realities on Knowledge.

5959:

So what? The Greekness of the empire is already discussed ad nauseum below. It does not need to be mentioned here and would only lead to confusion in someone not knowledgable about the Byzantine empire looking at this article.

2974:

was co-official with Greek, with Latin never extensively used in the East. It which would be misleading to attach 11 centuries of history to a latin title barely used for 2 or 3. That being said, I am against infoboxes anyway.

6236:. In addition, in the early Byzantine empire were still people who worshipped the Olympian Gods, and even though they gradually converted to Christianity, they are still an evidence that the Empire existed as a greek state. -- 6677:

was the cultural continuation of Hellenistic East is POV - because that is not a view shared by all scholars - many of whom stress that the empire was the contunuation of the Roman Empire albeit increasingly Greek dominated.

1821:

That is a very likely possibility (The loss of the original cross name after the fall of the empire) Malta is also know to sport the George cross, but I must confess my mediocre level of knowledge on the George Cross and its

2234:

Just a comment on the question of nationality in Byzantium and the middle ages in general, in face of the recent edits in the article questioning the existence of such a concept. A distinction needs to be drawn between the

6067:

719:

That whole template isn't even necessary in the first place, nor is it necessary to have either the Greek or English name at the top of it. The Greek and English names are explained at the beginning of the article anyway.

6747:

it is Latin, hence the name)' (although u seem to confuse 'roman' with 'latin'), since, indeed, the graeco-roman world was the 'bridge' between hellenistic and byzantine worlds. but i will not agree in the removal of the

6533:

some multi-ethnic Roman people has built a 2206 year-old Empire which started off as a city-state in Italy then and moved around its capital several times, changed its language and location, but has nonetheless remained

4662:

And not make myself clearer, it is true that Imperial power declined due to the arrival of new enemies such as the Normas and the Seljuks, but the reasons provided in the article about nomadic life is IMO someone's POV.

3107:

The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves

4127:, perhaps) did not plan the economy. The States could have had monopoly of certain goods (like Tea, Salt, etc) in order to get more money. They would certainly try to control certain trade items like ancient China with 1754:

I suppose it is possible to say the "official language" was Greek, although it wasn't always (for the period in that map and that flag apply, it was Latin). The idea of an "official language" is anachronistic in itself

6759:. btw, what u said about the Frankish emperors is, of course, correct, with one correction: the Pope disregarded the byzantine emperors as heirs of the romans, after their failure to protect him by the 'barbarians'. -- 4652:

In my opinion the section "The arrival of the Turks" is largely based on a single editor's POV. I don't know who compiled the section, but unless someone provides a source and citations, I'll proceed to heavy editing.

2444:

The foreigners called them Greeks since the 7th or 8th century BC, and after the 4rth crusade the Byzantines called themselves Greek as well. So as you see the "Greek Empire" is not really coming out of the blue here.

1025:

I removed that because it sounded a little bitter, or something...also, France has not always been called France, it was Gaul, or Francia/Austria/Neustria, I believe this is discussed in the History of France article.

1750:

The motto is not the motto of the empire, it's the motto of the Palaeologan dynasty (and the carving of the double-headed eagle that was added to the table awhile ago is a Palaeologan symbol, not one of the empire in

674:

I think it's ridiculous because it uses two different ethnic titles in the same phrase, and because I've never seen any credible source referring to it as such. I didn't mean to offend the person who came up with it

5226:

In accordance with the agreement reached in the discussion above, articles on Byzantine emperors are now being renamed to ODB standards using Anglo-Greek spelling. So for example, John II Comnenus has been moved to

4337:

I see you've been the victim of misunderstanding here. The point I was making was actually much simpler than you've thought. I wasn't thinking in racial terms, I was thinking more in terms of the numbers of people

6709:

continuation of the Hellenistic East. u can say that it was the administrative, political, monarchic continuation of the Roman Empire, but about culture (language, music, literature, art, etc)...pfff, u can't:)

1758:

So much of this article talks about how difficult it is to date the beginning of the empire...284 won't do without a lot of explanation (and even 1453 for "dissolution", whatever that means here, can be kind of

5534:

Exactly. Which is why it is disingenuous to insist on referring to it as a Greek nation state. Doing so will both confuse and give an incorrect impression to the average person looking at the Byzantine empire.

6252:

I'm not fighting for edit wars. If its Elite within the 14th century where calling themselves (along with the rest of the world) Hellenes, I don see why that would apply all through out its history. Good post

5048:

will be the one to be in the parenthesis. Even the article is titled with a name never used by the Byzantines, so no problem to the exact translation of this name in the language of that state, right? Regards

3340:

Rome. Nobody eager to collaborate? Nobody could use the infos in the Interwiki articles cited above. Anyway, for I'm Italian motherlanguage, if you can keep waching this article to correct my grammar errors.

1303:

It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming

3434:

Anyway, I would not mind if someone (or anyone) would help me place the new picture I found on the Byzantine Empire article and somehow fix this little problem of a Knowledge article not showing a picture.

3247:

content into the new content. Having said that though, as the Byzantine Empire is just a histiographical term, the whole dating of the issue is going to be a little fuzzy and this sentence aknoweldges that.

3227:

I wrote it, and yes, the quote is from Norwich. However, he is aknowledged in the bibliography so I didn't think it was neccessary to state it was from his book, as he wasn't the person that made the quote.

3079:

is uncluttered and has all the necessary information. The Latin, and "Empire of the Romans" just isn't necessary. Note that the text of the article has "Roman Empire", and that is how it is translated at

2307:

history, but this is not a "state of the Greek nation". Whatever that even means. Note also that the Holy Roman Empire was not always called "of the German nation", as even our own article about it states.

1869:

I've posted the list on your user page - there are about 25+ families. Digital would be the preferable format (SVG, AI, EPS). I may be able to get a hold of some shield templates in vector format for you.

1746:

First of all, we already have numerous maps on the page; to suggest any of them is representative of the empire is not very useful, especially because for most of its history it didn't control the western

4469:. While there is still some material to be added or balanced, I think that the article is rather comprehensive now. The main issue that differentiates it from our current FA-level articles is the lack of 1281:

Treadgold deliberately distincts Greeks from the rest of the population precicely because of their elevated position in the empire, in order to explain their subsequent dominance in it. The fact that the

3485: 573: 3395:

reflected that demography. The "Identity" section of the article deals with that. A pan-Balkanic ethnic cartography would be inapropriate as other political entities also developed alongside Byzantium.

2501:

in the big cities. The majority of the Sclavinias were eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors and is therefore no argument on the ethnic composition of the empire (I can be specific on this if you want).

3001:

It has the name basically used at the time, in the most common language, and the modern name. Putting "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans" in English and Latin is just confusing and unnecessary.--

4097:

1. a byzantine state monopoly on foreign trade during 7 centuries. I very much doubt that the byzantine state controlled and planned all the trade with all foreign nations in a fashion described as

4211:

Comment: Most ancient states exercised state control over imports and exports (especially of food and other essentials) when they felt it necessary. This is discussed at some length in Rostovtseff's

5615:

This is a gross underestimation of the situation at the time. Heraclius' reign is generally accepted as the reign that brought Hellenism into primacy above Latin both culturally and linguistically.

3750:

Hmmm, I see some good progress - keep up the good job! The section on geography and administrative division is still missing, and our goal should be to have those sections rival history in lenght.--

4032:

is a complete exageration. A state who has a monopoly in certain goods does not run all the national economy and as far as I know the byzantyne society was mainly a capitalist society. Longer than

3372:) says he may be a mixture of slavic and armenian. However also take this website with a grain of salt - it is a little nationalistic, and in some cases, inaccurate (from my perspective on history) 3141:

The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc.

1788:

I've created an image in JPG format of a depiction of the flag of the Palaeologian emperors I came across in a heraldry book a few years ago. This design, in turn, was actually from taken from the

5658:

The period commonly accepted for the Byzantine empire began 200 years after Marcellinus - I'm not disputing what he says but peoples attitudes can change especially obver so long a period of time.

4893:

be making a map with all the frontiers presented by varying colours in its own section of accompanying text. Of course the more conformed and pleasing methode might not always be the best methode.

1198:

compare the Roman empire, Byzantine empire and several empires on a map of Europe. Most importantly, it shows the Byzantine empire at 1204 - its low point - and 564, when it was at its peak. The

836:

Or another example: why do we use the word "Egypt" for the land of the Nile, originally called Khemet? - Egypt is only the Greek/Latin version of Haikuptah, the second name of the city of Memphis.

6581:

opening paragraph. Greek-speaking Roman Empire is all that needs to be stated in the opening paragraph - the Greekness of the empire is dealt with thoroughly enough elsewhere. I do dispute this:

5748: 3467:

Hmm, still I must point out that most of the countries articles have these "template infoboxes". Perhaps the template schould simply be improved and perhaps merged with the "timeline infobox".

2525:

through Maurice, I think). Greek didn't become the language of the Empire until Heraclius, and even then I'm not sure westerners would have called it the "Greek Empire" until after Charlemagne.

6823:"Today most scholars acknowledge that properly speaking, the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the continuation of the Hellenistic World, and its study is often grouped under Hellenology." 4258:

1081 is roughly 35 million people, whereas the population of the area controlled in 717AD is about 65 million people. Assuming that population levels in these areas have stayed roughly the same

2744:

Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?--

2462:

within the Empire which had always been trying to gain some political power but never achieved it. On the other hand many scholars support that one of the reasons of the Byzantine defeat at the

5359:

It seems to be a fine article and I will read later. My personal opinion upon this whole mess is the following: The "old" unified Roman Empire ended with the division after Theodosius FULLSTOP.

5208: 2850:

I changed the conclusion to something a bit more dramatic. I just want to qualify one of my statements that the Byzantine Empire has laid the foundations of western civilisation as we know it.

2252:. In fact, the war of names with Byzantium after Charlemagne's crowning as "Imperator Romanorum", over the matter of rights of Roman heritage, was a contest of ownership between rival nations. 6575:

a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire, if for no good reason, because that's how the Byzantine elite also ended up viewing itself in the 14th century.

4513: 3300:

the Byzantine Empire which emerged in late antiquity - however you date that change. That is akin to referring to the Holy Roman Empire as if it was just the Roman Empire of a later period.

3010:"Empire of the Romans"?? Who's coming up with that crap? That's completely incorrect, not in use, and misleading. The direct English translation of the Byzantine usage of the word "Roman" is 2322:

concept of nationality hadnt been developed yet. That's a rather bold statement given bibliography on the subject, especialy when Knowledge itself states that the first known use of the word

4999:

state". The way it was worded implied that Basileía... was the Greek translation of "Byzantine Empire", which is not the case. In that context, Byzantiné Autokratoría would be right (as it

3382: 3099:

offense part, you know, when speaking about anything in the Balkans (by the way, I don't like this name - Balkans), its hard not to raise emotions. I hope I didn't started a vendetta... :)

4496:

I can imagine it is absolutely difficult, like walking on the edge of a knife, to write an article on a subject of such importance, which is neutral enough to satisfy most of the readers!

2248:

of Greek nationality was well established among them, as it undoubtebly did for its western counterparts of France, England, Germany, even Italy. The official name of medieval Germany was

3502: 3978:, but I've put the text back, moved some of it around a bit, used your reword, and written some new stuff of my own. Please let me know whether you think the new version is any good! 5885:

How is it a POV? "St Constantine" is how Greek Orthodoxy perceives and perceived Constantine the Great, nobody's forcing the reader to believe that Constantine was actually a saint.

1653:

I don't give a shit what anyone says on the matter, and not stating that there are other common names used to refer to the Empire is a stupid-motherfucking-thing-to do, point blank.

3942:

century and continuing to the demise of the empire, does not hold true. Still, I'm sure with a little reworking this paragraph can be fixed, so I'll see what I can do with it asap.

1213:

Well, the problem is that we need to find a map in the public domain, or a map that is not copyrighted. There are plenty of good maps on the Internet but we can't use most of them.

1049:

Just a note on romanization of Greek: There is a tendency to use quasi-Latin romanization of Greek names and words in the Western tradition. This is somewhat defensible up to the

3814:

to see if anyone thinks it's useful. I thought I'd leave it there for a week or so, and then add it to some other articles. Changes and addidtions, especially visual, are welcome.

2420:

I'm not really insisting to change it into "Greek nation", but I don't find a valid counter-argument in here not to do so either. So according to you Decius, which Empire was ever

2284:? The inhabitants of all of the above states considered themselves much more than mere citizens of a state speaking a common tongue. The later kingdom infact, was officialy named 975:

The fact was, Slavs were farmers and never organised large staes and large conquest, and they were allies of other people. Bulgars conquered Slavs which were already in Bulgaria.

1237:

I'm using IE 6.0.28 and the "timeline" that is supposed to line the right side of the page blocks out the entire abstract. Unfortunately, fixing it is a bit beyond my expertise.

328:

Another problem seems to be that "byzantine" is a "somewhat" derrogative term (or at least it used to be) thanks to Edward Gibbson and the other scholars who were everything but

161:

Interesting point about the map...if it is inaccurate then I agree it should be corrected. The present depiction of the empire's Croatian frontier is based on an illustration in

5239: 4530: 6246:

Just a note, that turks didn't call only greeks Rum, this was a name for all christians in the Ottoman empire including bulgarians, serbians, etc. - Rum milet (Roman people).

5761: 4749:. The Britannica article says that when Manuel I proposed to the Germans (also "Romans" at the time) a joint Imperial expedition against the Normans, Barbarossa responded that 996:

The inscriptions on their coins were all in Latin until the end of Heraclius / beginning of Constans II, when they switched to Greek. Not sure if that is good evidence or not.

5221: 1437:

The fact that many modern works refer to it as "Byzantine" is irrelevant, and I don't see why this ongoing error should be continued in this new Century. That's old garbage.

1161:

It hasn't been, and I think they have all been reverted now...I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but we have been using "Byzantine" here rather than "East Roman."

6257:, I'm 100% with points 1 and 2, constantine and the western vue that they where greeks. But for Rum... that really does sounds more like Rome and less like Hellenes. As for 5077:"Byzantine Empire is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν ῾Ρωμαίων) during the Middle Ages..." 4175:

In the early centuries, the state had a great influence. Prices and guilds were controlled, the taxes and state salaries served as the economic flow instead of a free market.

3167:

I can't get any content out of this: it's the parsing that's truly hard to grasp, I trow. And who's denying history the chance to acknowledge its existence? Not I for one. --

1935:

custom of coats of arms acquired over the centuries of european involvement in the middle-east, a legacy from the crusaders? Perhaps forced upon them durign the reign of the

6128:

It is NOT original research!!! The article is about the Byzantines not about what other people called them. Therefore it seems rather abstract to describe a people and say:

1645:

is also in common usage is to be stated upfront. "Proof against the notion", but that notion was not even raised by that statement, and I have no qualms with "that notion".

826:

Only to demonstrate a point: "Jesus" is a greek-latin translation of "Joshua" yet nobody plans to change the name of that article (or its common use throughout this world)

94:

Another factor in the collapse of the empire may have been the demise of the 'theme' system, which had supplied large numbers of troops for the empire in earlier centuries.

3729: 3399: 1685:

from the name it called itself seems to be largely unnoticed. Anyway, this is just a comment. I'm not advocating a change in location. Congratulations on a great article.

6585:

No it was a continuation of Graeco-Roman culture - over the centuries the two had merged that is why there is no inconsistency in an ethnic Greek identifying as a Roman.

3619:

I agree separating to "History of" is the right route .. but if that is done, does there have to be a re-vote for FA, since the history is the majority of the article? --

4131:

and other States with Guns. Now to describe this a planned economy is in my opinion simply wrong. But, hey fell free to disagree. I don´t claim to know the whole truth.

354:

Myself? I would like to call this article: "Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire" (in my personal opinion the more correct name) but I fear to even begin a debate about this.

4473:. Therefore I'd ask the editors to start including them in the article. I'd love to help but I am currently busy doing the same (including inline cits) in my old FA of 2410:

Westerners calling it the "Greek Empire" was also something of an insult - rather than acknowledge their Roman heritage, which of course was also claimed by the HRE.

2143:

released the maps under the GFDL. Of course anyone could just remove the copyright-notice from the map, that shouldn't conflict with the GFDL. At least I think so...

4566: 4224: 1128:

in reference to the Bavarian city, that would be normal (and, according to Knowledge policy, correct) English usage; if the article notes that the name in German is

5367:

depends, if other ppl also agree that it is a good deed. If the "others" believe that it was a bad deed, I will be considered a "bad person" which did a "bad deed".

4247: 3358: 2166:

Okay thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. It's a fairly petty point I was making but since it's a featured article I thought I should ask anyway.

1066:

Addendum: It looks like the sound changes occurred earlier than I had realized, so that New Testament–era Greek is pronounced more like modern than ancient Greek

6204:

The Western Europeans refered to the Byzantine Empire as the Greek Empire and to its inhabitants as Greeks. Everyone has to admit that, cause it is simply a fact.

2337:

Byzantium, for Liutprand, qualifies the requirements that define a "nation", which judging by the rest of the sources in this case also happens to be the Greeks.

5674:

Yes in the same way as an Englishman my people were once part of the Roman Empire and it is part of my history - Constantine the Great was proclaimed emperor in

3726: 1368:

Why not? The Byzantines themselves were aware of their Greek-Roman ancestry and so were the neighbours of Byzantium, even prior to the the battle of Manzikert.

348:

I read the whole book and got the impression that the name is disputed by scholars themselves and it appears that some of them use it only in a "later" context.

252:

How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous? Why is it so hard for some people to realize that we're using

6857:

in some talk pages. Would any have sugestions? Here is are some exemples: Drungaries, Tetrach, Hecatcontarch, Protocarabi, Chartulary, Protobandophorus, ex...

6597:

Now you're just pasting text which can be easily misinterpreted when isolated, and I hope you're not doing this on purpose. Let me give you the entire phrase:

4087: 4008: 3690: 367:

Well we're definitely not going to call it that. It's the Byzantine Empire and that's where it's going to stay. This is just what it's called, leave it alone.

5249:

This discussion page seems a little long; can we use archives? Also, I noticed while exploring Byzantine topics that a "Byzantine culture" template exists at

3126:, the former being a literary form of speech with no native speakers and the latter the vernacular of the Byzantines. He probably didn't speak the vernacular 1354:

Because I think that the fact Armenians rose to high administrational positions does not reflect the prevailing Byzantine concept of a Roman that was defined

1696: 242: 219: 6330:

Also, the original editor seems to have a decidedly Anti-Greek POV, going over Greek topics trying to claim Turkish influence at every possible opportunity.

1287:

beginning, and would also be unfair to the persistance of national identities alongside Byzantinism within the territories, such as those of the Armenians.

403:, since that is the most common name used in English scholarship, but I do think it's useful to use "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" at the top of the template. — 4792: 3825: 3798: 2439:

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks.

1735: 436:

using the best academically attested terminology here. There are countless examples of derogatory terms being standardised in a similar fashion. The term "

232: 6081:

Ostrogorsky uses "medieval Greek Empire" and "Greeks" or "Byzantine Greeks" in the place of "Byzantines" all the time, and so do most of modern historians

6794: 5287: 4931: 3731: 3376: 2747:

mentioned in the article, is virtually synonymus with "Christian state of the Greek nation" so I dont understand why then the change in the first place.

1350:

Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed?

209: 150: 134: 6356:

someone who wants to learn the basics on the topic. Your chauvinism on this subject is getting me really suspicious about your neutrality as an editor.

5843:

What about references within Greek works of the time to Byzantium (Buzantion)? Is this refering to a specific region rather than the empire? Thanks.

5564: 5549: 3828: 3787: 6096:

No that is not the case - just an accurate portrayal based on what serious scholars know - not on the half baked stuff people get fed in some schools.

5123:, he doesn't have a box on the bottom saying that he was a Byzantine Emperor and who he was succeded by. Also, emperors starting from Constantine I to 4409: 3992: 3968: 3929: 3388: 572:

When did this become a discussion of the name of the article? The question was regarding the English translation for the Greek text at the top of the

153: 137: 5280: 4672:

I have just completed a major re-write of the section you mentioned. The POV material has been removed, and replaced with a more thorough discussion.

4442: 2204:

Does that really require a separate article? If you're going to make "Byzantine" into a page on it's own, why not discuss the uses of the term there?

1947: 1899: 1848: 1796: 985:

Does not the text as it stands give insufficient weight to the fact that Latin remained the official language of the administration until the time of

6207:

The Turks also considered the Byzantines as Greeks. in fact, they still name the Greeks of Turkey 'Rum', without them having to do anything with the

5758: 5573: 5539: 5298: 5218: 5030:

Greece (Greek: Ελλάδα, Elládha (IPA: ), or Ελλάς, Ellás (IPA: )), officially the Hellenic Republic (Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, Ellinikí Dhimokratía (IPA: )

4897: 4783: 4582: 4420: 4398: 4149: 4059: 3525: 2414: 2013: 5504: 5471: 5433: 3935:

Good work! The new material has gone a long way to fixing the section. There's one thing that does need to be checked over though. This paragraph:

2968: 2559:

development that took place over several centuries. By the time of the fall of Constantinople in 1204 it was already complete. We would expect that

1973: 1826: 1811: 1270:

itself had already began to mean a pagan rather than a person of Greek race or culture. Instead the usual word for an eastern Greek had begun to be

948:

just simple mistake, and i cuol dcorrect it, or there was such a great invasion of Khazars which ended with all Balkans being in their posession? ]

371: 6130:

it doesn't matter how they defined themselves or what they thought they were. No. Instead we'll look at what people in other countries called them.

5169: 5149: 3780: 1831:

Elsewhere on Knowledge it is claimed that England borrowed the St. George cross from the Knights Templar (I challenged this but nobody listens...)

1704: 1608:

of the Roman Empire, and various times and subjects (the republic & dictatorships , principae, dominate, byzantium, etc.) would have their own

629:

it was not ethnically Roman. I then objected to that, because I don't know of any reputable scholarship which defines "Roman Empire" by ethnicity.

386: 5726: 5138: 4989: 4963: 4347: 4301: 4267: 3756: 3667: 3538: 2311: 6483: 5405: 5379: 5342: 5320: 5192: 4934: 4215:. I see no reason to believe the Byzantine Empire was different. Please stop trying to force modern categories on a state that perished in 1461. 3699: 3515: 2978: 2679: 753: 6763: 6599:"how the Byzantine state was viewed by its contemporaries, i.e. a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire" 5092:

I dont agree with the statement, the Term Byzantine was used prior to the 19th century and "Greek speaking Roman Empire"... ~ . Could be better.

4757: 4452: 3801: 2951: 2243:

in itself. The rise of the nation-state is connected with the universal adherence of the right of nations to self-determination, from which the

1835: 1777:

Technically the Byzantine Empire began in 27 B.C. because it was really just a continuation of the Roman Empire , just with a different capitol

858:

page, anyone want to help me out a bit on it? It is probably riddled with mistakes, I don't know that much about it but I did the best I could.

843: 724: 186: 6519: 6511:

from the Hellenistic empires, in part because of Roman borrowings from the Greeks from Augustus to Doicletian. Why can't the article say both,

6457:

Don't you think it will be ridiculous to imply that the Roman Empire of Scipio and Cicero survived well into the middle and spoke Modern Greek?

6439: 6048: 5861: 5847: 5713: 5588: 4573: 4431: 4388: 3901: 3818: 3762: 3638: 3623: 3470:

Another point I find "strange": why doesn´t the "timeline infobox" have its own "template/page"? It´s very dificult to expand and improve it.

3326: 3145:

No in fact they coined various terms much earlier, such as "Imperium Graecorum". "Romaic" was not a coined title, it was a direct translation.

2802: 830: 740: 713: 616: 589: 557: 539: 416: 358: 6714: 6313: 6303: 6240: 5087: 5053: 4924: 4332: 4203: 3925:

I've put something in, but it was done in haste. Feel free to rework it as needed. It's largely based on Runciman's 'Byzantine Civilisation.'

2606:

majority of the population was Greek, and in the last 4 centuries exclusively Greek. Non-Greek populations never reached significant numbers.

2466:

was because of the Armenian, Slavic, Bulgarian etc missionaries in the Byzantine army. Those things proves that a Byzantine Greek nationality

6692: 6609: 6360: 6122: 6059: 6028: 5992: 5928: 5910: 5829: 5797: 5011: 4977: 4718: 4184:

There was a state monopoly on silk, especially purple-dyed. At some time, payments in purple were substituted with money (and the other way).

3352: 2900: 2648:

and saying that Byzantium was a medieval Greek state, a phrase prefered by academics also, when that's exactly what it was most of the time?

2387: 1918: 1909: 1884: 1874: 1864: 1654: 1646: 1525: 1518: 1500: 1493: 1472: 1438: 1431: 1411: 4315: 4276: 3417: 2328:"in 968 a.d. when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor." 201: 6845: 6733:

There had been a heated debate in the middle ages as to who is the heir to the Roman Empire and Rome finally favoured the Frankish emperor.

6505: 6382: 5203: 5096: 4766: 3088: 2881: 2390: 667: 548: 510: 482: 471: 452: 296: 265: 6417: 5650:

the time of the Byzantine empire to a largely Greek speaking and Greek dominated empire but that does not mean they were no longer Romans!

5257: 3293: 691: 4738: 4642: 4535: 4483: 3686: 3219: 1338:

Religious heresies were always present, and Bogomilism in particular originated from Bulgaria so there is little to say about Byzantium.

997: 6018:

The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to educate not to perpetuate inaccuracies or give information at the lowest common denominator.

3744: 3651: 3314: 3251: 3188: 2552:

historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century.

2094:

I noticed when reading over this article that all the maps have copyright tags on them. Shouldn't these be removed as they're under the

1699: 782: 5110: 4617: 3843:. There's plenty of room for improvement, especially in integration with the rest of the page. Here are some links that may be useful: 3679: 3329: 2720:

as if one party or another is bound to be wronged by the truth. Ignoring the other inadequacies deriving from such a characterization,

820:(byzantine) Empire" which is a good compromise. Let´s not change that title for a more correct name as it would only confuse everybody. 5083:

Again - it's not that I don't want the expression. It's just that it didn't make sense to me in the way the first sentence is worded.

4702: 4405:

Looking at his user page, the editor who made the changes may be Canadian. I agree that the spellings ought not to have been changed.

3717: 3283: 1471:

scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Eastern Roman Empire, so I don't see any legs for the counter-argument.

5964:

Today most scholars acknowledge that properly speaking, the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the unbroken continuation of the

5906:

are, so although he is recognised as such by the Greek Orthodox this is not shared by the rest of Christianity and is therefore POV.

3479: 3387:

What exactly nationalitys was in the balkans in the middle ages, specially in south balkans, any one have statistiks for this thanks

3334: 1677:

accompli, but in very simple terms, the Byzantine Empire was in direct line from the Roman Empire -- it is reasonable to call it the

1290:

Which is why I think Byzantium's identity depends more on its fluid society than on the territories it encompassed, as you suggest.

4728: 3797:

Anyone want to help me put this in? Mold it together with Art and Architecture so it becomes, "Art, Architecture and Literature"? --

3304: 2666:

spoke Greek in addition to their own languages, and "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity

2532: 2492: 2404: 6867:

I'll go ahead with latinized forms since those are all I have on hand. If you have the old Byzantine/Greek terms, please post them.

4778: 4693: 4252: 3613: 2947:

useful just to have "Byzantine Empire" in the box, but whoever creates the rules for these boxes would have it otherwise, I guess.

2798: 1077:

In principle I agree with you, but there is a Knowledge convention that all proper names should be given in their most common form

6349:

Apparently they're not always treated separately, as you can see for yourself King's College classifies it under Hellenic studies

5275: 4676: 3725:

I agree with Adam, though Piotr's argument may be useful in highlighting areas which need to be better covered in these articles.

3363:

Can some one here say exactly what was the languiage being spoken by the Macedonian dynasty during the byzantine empire, thankyou

2837: 2751: 2652: 2542: 2519: 2479: 2353: 2300: 2256: 1124:

one thing; mentioning them and inaccurately romanizing them is another. An analogy would be: If an article consistently writes

839:"Byzantine" is used because no one can properly pronounce "Constantinopolitan" and because "Eastern Roman" is a bit unhandy too. 247: 4036:? First, define capitalism. My personal definition is when the economy is not activly run by the state, and "that" is as old as 3835:

Also, possible change 'Byzantine Commerce', to 'Byzantine Economy and Commerce'? Gives us more scope to write an article for it.

3501:

It also ocuppied a lot of space, and the article for itself is "too big" already. Perhaps somebody can merge some things of the

4219: 4135: 4044: 2506: 2433: 2367: 303:

I can only say that the name of "this" empire is "fiercly" disputed. The term "byzantine" itself was invented by scholars like

174: 6104: 4508: 4373: 1393:

want to sign your names here, even if you don't have a user name (just type ~~~~), it makes it easier to follow a discussion.

1157:. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't know enough about the topic to know if it is valid. -] 00:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) 122:

article - one showing the empire in 717AD, and one showing it in 1025AD. I hope that together these new maps will be helpful!

5244: 4952: 4378: 3792: 3196: 3171: 2830: 2809: 2221:

Sure, but it doesn't need to be a disambiguation page, does it? That page could be about the word "Byzantine" and its usage.

965:

Slavic until they were assimilated later). I'm not sure if the difference is important enough to revert the page, though. --

458:

What does ethnicity have to do with any of it? The Apostle Paul was a Roman, yet his ethnicity was certainly not Italian. —

6055:

And I suppose the response to your personal interpretation of Comnena's work would come from the works of Gemistos Plethon.

4667: 4657: 4239:

There's material on these pages that may be of interest to some here, and maybe they could benefit from some inter-linking.

3534:

Yep, the code definitely looks much cleaner, and it should be less "scary" and much easier for new users to edit. Good job!

3473:

I read the discussion and can only say that if the flag and motto were wrong or/and outdated, simply improve the template.

3310:

The word stems from the old greek city of Byzantium, which Constantine the Great refounded as Constantinople (Nova Roma). --

1667:"also as the Eastern Empire, or the Greek Empire, though Greeks were only one of the many ethnicities comprising the empire" 1499:

I don't want this to turn into a battle of egos, I just want this proposed renaming of the article to be voted on at least.

6740: 6681: 6657: 6589: 6544: 6469: 6343: 6299:? isn't it an anachronism to talk about italian in the exact time 10th-13 centuries) u are talking about greeks? Regards -- 6141: 6111: 6037:

The information they were given was wrong. Rather than confirming such an erroneous view an encyclopedia should correct it.

6007: 5981: 5816: 5780: 5309: 4460: 3149: 3135: 3026: 3005: 2940: 2876: 1150: 928: 325:

and I quote: "The name Byzantium is a convenient convention, coined by French scholars during the seventeenth century"... .

6804:

and vigorous sources of strength. Here Byzantine history properly speaking begins the history of the medieval Greek Empire

6757: 5271:. Anyone who is interested, your suggetions and comments on the article talk page would be very much appreciated. Thanks! 4019: 169: 126: 6815: 6668: 6622: 6565: 6494: 6269: 6173: 6151: 5889: 4120:? Or is it, free trade completly unrestricted by the State? Nether one? A hybrid between of the first two descriptions? 3982: 3946: 3919: 3446:

I'm assuming the infobox was what was being discussed in the above "Flag of the Byzantine Empire" section above. It was

2578:? It is the group or groups of people that differ in their race or culture from the majority of the people They exist in 2030:

Don't you mean to say the "Macedonian Dynasty"? The "Macedonian Empire" refers to a different period of Greek history...

1111:

the most common form of the name in English, Constantinople is. The correct Greek forms of the name can be discussed at

530:

Look, most of the ppl (here in wikipedia) know that the term was invented. Everybody has a POV (even scholars, see this

6644:

You obviously haven't been taking notice of anything I've written otherwise you would know that not once have I stated

3274: 879: 6182:

Constantine the Great is considered a saint by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Anglicans (see

4913: 4466: 4320:

Anyway in my opinion the peak of the Empire's strength was reached under the Macedonian dynasty, and lasted until the

3348:

It depends. What is it about this article that strikes to you so badly? Please be specific before making large edits.

2772:, why dont you discuss with us you reservations about NPOV and perhaps we can resolve them here, instead of putting a 2378:, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background ( 2025: 2006:

Macedonian Empire, would be good. One showing the restored empire of the Palæologi at its height would be nice, too.

5743: 4416:

Ok, Then I will change my battle-cry: Death to the imperial Canadian dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously)

4075: 3629: 3592: 3568: 2056:

Knowledge is not a dictionary - the meaning of the word "byzantine" is not encyclopedic. It should stay a redirect.

1996: 322: 6221:

as part of the Roman History. I am sick of word-games like 'they self-identified as Romans, Anna Komnene wrote that!

4973:

suggested perhaps having both terms and both translatiosn to be presented within the first few lines of hte article.

4808: 6555: 5604:

and reforms during the Macedonian dynasty), up until the fall of the city. Is anyone else prepared to lend a hand?

4681: 4281:

Yes. I googled the countries in question. As it happens, my information came mainly from the wikipedia articles on

4112:(cheap retorical question)? Is it "the exploration of the masses by the capitalist minority" as described in the 4040:

at the dawn of human civilization (at the very least). Tell us the source where that strange statement is written.

3693:. Even if we are talking about a historical country, that doesn't change the fact that those are separate topics.-- 3462: 1410:, which is more accurate. It won't cause any problems, as anybody typing in "Byzantine empire" will be redirected. 2780: 6861: 6837:, acknowledging that the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the centre of Greek culture in the Middle Ages." 5754: 5691: 5626: 4587: 4358: 1766:

is not the only currency they ever had (and to say they ever had an official currency is, again, an anachronism).

531: 492:, yet you seem to be insisting that there's nothing "Roman" about the "Byzantine Empire" because its people were 341: 79: 71: 66: 5294:

I challenge you to find any serious scholar who backs the Greek nationalist line you seem so intent on pushing.

4306:

If it's based on original research then it's almost certain that you're mistaken. It's very naive to analyse an

2563:

testimony would have greater impact to us when he said that the dispute with the Byzantines was a dispute among

1483:

scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. How could that not have "legs"?

553:

Well if you agre with me, you have to admit that "Byzantine Empire" is the most apropiate name for this article.

4623:

in the east, who were a much greater threat, although in themselves not as powerful as the Ummuyads had been.

4474: 3604: 3556: 3546: 3447: 3269: 3046: 2363:. I've never come across any scholars referring to Byzantium as part of the medieval "Greek-speaking" history. 2095: 698: 621:

If for no other good reason, it was not regarded as a Roman Empire because it didn't include the city of Rome.

5951:", while Eastern contemporaries, who had not inherited the Roman tradition, followed the Empire's own use of " 5594: 3131:

paternal language, but in our common language of Greece, so that everyone will be familiar with its context".

6072:

Eastern Roman Empire and that they called themselves Romans. So it is very far from being original research.

4523: 4488: 3600: 3572: 2960:

itself not the Empire of the Romans (IMPERIVM ROMANORVM), rather than the "Roman Empire" (IMPERIVM ROMANVM)

1524:

I have read English books with Eastern Roman Empire as the titled used, though I don't remember the ISBN's.

6375:. And there's one from Princeton which groups Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek studies under Hellenic 5739:

well worth reading if you are interested in the subject of how the eastern empire lost its western cousin.

4920:

many things that where common to the times, few authors probobly gave any thought to taking note of these.

3596: 2114: 1895:

JPG to SVG (the filename is the same). If someone here knows why the SVG images don't appear, please help!

1401: 661: 583: 504: 465: 410: 290: 4518:

There is some discussion about the ethnicity of the first Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Greats mother

4465:

I am impressed that the editors of this article managed to improve it so significantly in the weeks since

4263:

with a view to somehow including it in the section on 'Reasons for the collapse of the Byzantine Empire'.

1406:

I seriously encourage everybody to agree to moving "Byzantine empire" (a modern semi-spurious coinage) to

4753:. For those reasons I thought that the most popular contemporary name needs to be mentioned in the head. 3998: 3564: 3369: 2814: 2697:

Who were those "other" nations that that spoke Greek despite being of non-Greek origin? Because the term

2229: 2188: 1859:. We could also set up a page on the nobility and keep the information in comment format <! -- --: --> 1560:

article should discuss the history of the entire empire through the fifth century, and then refer you to

1419: 1313:

Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians?

891:

ages has been deleted. Is this a disputable information? Otherwise, it seems to be a useful information.

5663:

you are a Catholic and you intend to Catholicize and Latinize Greek History to whatever extent you can.

5250: 5116: 4470: 3807: 3576: 2863:

was the barrier between Europe and the Middle East - keeping the Muslim empires for over running Europe

2845: 1959: 38: 6339:

refracted through the prism of Greek nationalism and the opening paragraph is failing on both counts.

4840: 4024:

Many states had a monopoly over certain goods (the British Empire had the monopoly over tea, remember

3425: 224:

I can only say to you Bigdaddy1204 that even today Greece has made a hell of a problem about the name

6197:) and I would be really shocked if there would be anyone to say that modern Greeks see themselves as 6084:

Maybe he does but I've never seen it any book before and certainly not to the extent that you claim.

5032:. we don't use the term 'Greece', but this is how the others call our country at the moment (same in 3154: 2788: 2109: 656: 578: 499: 460: 405: 285: 6087:

I see no reason to give in to some editors' potential chauvinism and denial of the historical truth.

5686:

I don't think so - The Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 the Hellenic Republic didn't exist until 1821.

4709:

is a name coined by later scholars, and the "Eastern Roman Empire" only lasted for 2 centuries. The

4157:

reason and the entry describes the "former views" about the Byzantine Empire in all their hipocrises

2911:

Any opinions on what the name of this entity should be at the top of the infobox? Currently it is:

1742:(assuming you are the same person), it's more than population and land area that are anachronistic: 5262: 4751:"An alliance between the Holy Roman Empire and the Empire of the Greeks, is not one amongst equals" 4647: 4519: 3857: 3783:). Any comments or suggestions for improvements to this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! 2860:

Justinian's revamped law code of old Roman law, is the basis of most of modern Europes codified law

1245:

Sorry, that was my fault, I fixed it now - I forgot to set the width of the new table row I added.

6462:

Your chauvinism on this subject is getting me really suspicious about your neutrality as an editor

5646:

your hypothesis the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire was thoroughly Latin up until the 12th Century.

5044:

etc.... It doesn't have to be the exact translation, u know... But if u insist, the term in greek

2192:) as it didnt quite fit to the subject of the Byzantine Empire. I also added a link for it in the 1430:

They called themselves the Roman Empire, so it is more accurate. And the article should be moved.

6040:

Which is pretty much the definition of original research. This is not just an encyclopedia, it's

5874: 5120: 2906: 2866:

had a central role to play in the Crusades, of whose affect on the world are too numerous to list

1013:

Oddly enough, however, these selfsame historians have never felt a need to invent a new name for

272:

How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous?

6194: 6167: 4762:

Every so often this discussion pops up. Calling them the Byzantines is indeed a nice compromise.

4545: 4094:(7 centuries?) actually longer than capitalism." . What I disgree is that this sentence claims: 3661:

Culture and politics (and history) are not enough: what about economy, territory, military...?--

3628:

Once this problem is addressed (assuming it is done fairly soon), then we can 'reconfirm' it at

2180: 4225: 2794: 1225: 904:

Should there be a link to the Ottoman Empire, which was in the same region at a later time? --

6093:

You're literally suggesting to ignore and remove what most modern historians take for granted.

5074:

It will, maybe, draw fire from the other sect around here ;), but I think to put the phrase at

1641:

no one here was saying that such a term was used by the Empire itself. The fact that the term

1604:

Well, I don't want the article to even go as in-depth as it does now. I would like it to be a

1346:

Albanians were were one of the smallest non-Greek populations in the empire. What about them?

351:

Don´t forget that some nations are proud of this empire as they seem themselves "heirs" to it.

6336:

Byzantine studies are listed as part of the Greek History lessons in countries such as the UK

5766: 2529: 2489: 2401: 2081: 2068:

Yeah, change it back. It also helps to have it as a redirect when I am too lazy to type ] :)

2060: 2047: 2010: 1956: 1597: 1568: 1461: 910: 47: 17: 6653:

Which ones exactly? If you're going to say something like that at least give some examples.

3709:

and I am defending a point similar to yours. I fear that ppl simply want more articles like

1199: 1194:

I found a link for people to get a better understanding about the size of the empire. These

6396: 5569:

Yes they did - so if they really only saw the Byzantines as Greeks why would they do that?

4942: 4352: 3877: 2383: 1549:

to the history of the West, and a footnote to mention Byzantium is ignorant and damaging. -

1542: 1228:. I've been meaning to translate all the names to "english", but I've been too busy. :) -- 6334:

Miskin, just because you can find a reference for something does not mean it is not POV!

3096:

persons who may take it more seriously. I for one agree with this name, that you propose.

1195: 8: 6841:

the classical pagan roots of the Greek world, and did not simply express common opinion.

6262: 5429:

it doesn't matter what YOU think people should have called them or should call them now.

5214: 4592:

Which was the stronger: the Byzantine Empire in 717AD or the Byzantine Empire in 1180AD?

4321: 3584: 2822: 2815: 2463: 1004:

When I expanded the article, I hope I made sufficient note of the Latin vs. Greek parts.

6003:

wrong. Rather than confirming such an erroneous view an encyclopedia should correct it.

5619: 5335: 4724:

They were only referred as "Romans" by the Islamic word, and that in limited occasions.

2196:

disambiguation page. I think its more appropriate this way. What do contributors think?

2036: 1953: 1317:

The Bulgarians held an even lower position than the Armenians. They were organized into

1067: 6728: 6370: 4698:

Yes. Byzantines were being refered to as both Romans and Greeks. Same for their lands.

4527: 4394:

Agreed. Death to the imperial American dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously)

4113: 3560: 3237:

Norwich quite useless when I was trying to get inspiration for content of this section.

2273: 855: 5584:

change in the political enviroment which once imposed policy in the particular issue.

5184:

always meant Roman, so its perfectly fine to consider him the first Byzantine Emperor.

4168:. It is a paper collection also available as a series of PDFs. Skimming I found that: 2374:

Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the

2290:

Roman Empire during the middle ages, a Christian state of the Greek nation (or people)

1541:

Byzantine Empire is simpler, and more common. I vote we keep it here. But what of the

1035:

a latin-speaking region - Justinian I was a native latin speaker from modern albania.

6821:

To chime in (yeah, yet more debate *g*): I have some reservations about the sentence

5740: 5272: 5236: 5188:

probably impossible, since it was a process and not a singular event that marked it.

4789: 4673: 4639: 4579: 4481: 4428: 4406: 4385: 4370: 4344: 4298: 4272:

For some reason I do find those numbers extremely exaggerated. Do you have a source?

4264: 4244: 4146: 4072: 4056: 3989: 3979: 3965: 3943: 3926: 3916: 3898: 3892: 3872: 3815: 3784: 3768: 3754: 3741: 3697: 3665: 3648: 3636: 3611: 3580: 3019: 2826: 2454: 2244: 2022: 612:

was a roman citizen but ethnicaly he was a Jew (as far as I know) born in Anatolia.

445: 319: 239: 216: 183: 166: 123: 6453:

Modern Greek emerges in the Byzantine world at least as early as the 12th century BC

6223:. well, they did identified as 'Romans', with the meaning of 'Christians' after the 5753:

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at

4687:

known during most of its history to its contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks"

2733:

was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense.

2515:

Slavs never established a presence neither in big cities neither in the government.

1579:

empire, and refer to such specific lengths in detail in their respective articles? -

604:

is not the only one possible." instead of explaining the

6646:

That the 'Byzantines' called themselves 'Romans', and ergo they were Latin 'Romans'

6436: 6376: 6021: 5939:

However, during most of its history it was known to its Western contemporaries as "

5723: 5561: 5546: 5501: 5430: 5268: 5228: 4949: 4788:

Is there any way we could have a section which uses the following images together?

4735: 4553: 4439: 4366: 4025: 3862: 3676: 3588: 3458: 2948: 2526: 2486: 2411: 2398: 2308: 2222: 2205: 2077: 2069: 2057: 2043: 2007: 1993: 1832: 1770: 1718: 1594: 1565: 1561: 1534: 1509: 1484: 1458: 1446: 1423: 1394: 1246: 1214: 1162: 1027: 1021:

or other western European countries that have radically changed over the centuries.

1005: 966: 899: 876: 721: 608:

reasons. As a matter of fact the POV of Miskin is very defendable. And by the way:

428: 368: 116: 6369:

There's another website of a Russian university which groups it with modern Greek

6078:

No it really isn't - they look at what the Byzantines themselves thought as well.

4191:. I don't know the exact difference with a planned economy or other similar terms. 4123:

As far as I know all the States during ancient history (with the exception of the

2497:

The Slavs were in regions that were called Sclavinias, not all over the place and

6516: 6480: 6411: 6296: 6183: 5903: 5870: 5468: 5464: 5376: 5317: 5159: 5146: 5128: 4903: 4614: 4417: 4395: 4216: 4188: 4132: 4098: 4091: 4067: 4041: 4029: 4012: 3909: 3852: 3714: 3512: 3474: 3441: 3119: 3115: 2965: 2676: 2361:"Byzantine history properly speaking is the history of the medieval Greek Empire" 2148: 2042:

multiple hops, are there any objections if this is changed back to a redirect? --

1229: 892: 827: 737: 710: 613: 554: 536: 383: 355: 304: 229: 6161: 6075:

which is obviously based on how non-Byzantines viewed Byzantium back in the day.

5127:

don't have that box as well. Should I start adding those boxes to the articles?

3511:

If you don´t agree (but try it out, before judging, I beg you) simply revert it.

2710:"Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity 448:, they both now have an official use and nobody knows about their real meaning. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6760: 6711: 6350: 6300: 6254: 6237: 6224: 5050: 5041: 4910: 4797:(P.S. The order is top to bottom on the left, then top to bottom on the right) 4233: 3975: 3953: 3706: 3620: 3259: 3123: 1613: 1580: 1550: 1202:

also has other maps and information which will help newbies with the subject.,

1116: 1112: 1082: 864: 609: 5267:

I'm looking for volunteers to help with an improvement project on the article

849: 102:

If the empire had relied on the theme army, it would have fallen much faster.

87: 6851: 6830: 6737: 6702: 6678: 6654: 6586: 6541: 6466: 6340: 6138: 6108: 6004: 5978: 5969: 5907: 5844: 5813: 5777: 5722:

It does, it just doens't work like an internal Knowledge link :) I fixed it.

5710: 5688: 5623: 5596: 5585: 5570: 5536: 5402: 5339: 5313: 5295: 5189: 5164: 5133: 4986: 4970: 4960: 4699: 4083: 4004: 3811: 3396: 3341: 2975: 2834: 2777: 2759: 2748: 2649: 2350: 2297: 2253: 2214: 2197: 1944: 1915: 1896: 1871: 1845: 1804: 1793: 1739: 1688: 1670: 1630: 1238: 1058:

for now, but they too should really not be Latinized after a certain point. —

925: 750: 308: 198: 6475:

Please calm down, both of you; the exaggerations of the Greek nationalists.

4969:Αυτοκρατορία rather than Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων was the proper period term). Like 3047:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

2687:

The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there

2658:

The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there

1445:

Oh Christ...it'll get moved over my banned de-adminned move-warring body :)

278:

Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was

147: 6834: 6753: 6373: 6295:. but since u brought up a dispute about 'anachronism', why don't u change 6284: 6208: 5666:

Prove it. If you seriously believe what you say you are very much mistaken.

5254: 5124: 4613:

image. Also very important is who was the enemy and what was his strength?

4478: 4362: 3867: 3751: 3694: 3685:

Adam, have you looked at the examples above? There is a difference between

3662: 3633: 3608: 3535: 3127: 3081: 3075:

That's all well and good, but four names is just to much. The compromise:

2957: 2933: 2764: 2619:

Balkan protectorates and ducates: 3 million (figures by Mcevedy and Jones,

2292:

is deemed inapropriate. And also to explain why medieval Germany was named

1983: 1936: 1557: 1546: 1137: 1100: 1070: 1059: 905: 840: 488:

Red herring. "Roman" in the sense of "Empire" has everything to do with a

108: 736:

I wrote down my reasons for making this template. It´s one "point" above.

6858: 6842: 6812: 6689: 6665: 6619: 6606: 6562: 6502: 6491: 6400: 6379: 6357: 6310: 6266: 6258: 6170: 6148: 6119: 6056: 6045: 6025: 5989: 5965: 5925: 5886: 5858: 5826: 5794: 5607: 5093: 5084: 5008: 4974: 4921: 4894: 4763: 4754: 4725: 4715: 4664: 4654: 4570: 4449: 4329: 4312: 4273: 3563:, with country-like formatting). Alternative is to rename this series to 3453: 3349: 3280: 3216: 3168: 3146: 3132: 3085: 3023: 3002: 2937: 2806: 2736: 2539: 2516: 2503: 2476: 2430: 2426: 2364: 2167: 2128: 2127:

Yes, I noticed that. I was referring to removing the tags, not the maps.

2108: 2099: 2031: 1970: 1906: 1881: 1861: 1856: 1823: 1808: 1782: 1727: 1710: 1050: 990: 980: 954: 941: 767: 730: 702: 680: 655: 622: 577: 565: 545: 517: 498: 479: 459: 449: 404: 312: 284: 262: 6724:

wikipedia is obliged to use the established terminology and definitions.

4015:(7 centuries?) actually longer than capitalism. Could you ellaborate? -- 6501:"nationalist") just because you can't come up with a logical argument. 6414: 6404: 4821: 4775: 4746: 4690: 4595: 4200: 4142: 4109: 4051: 4033: 4016: 3414: 3311: 3290: 2869:

was the cultural, economic and political superpower for the middle ages

2769: 2379: 688: 5612:"which by the 12th century had already become a synonym for Hellene." 4626:

Both Leo III and Manuel Comnenus were intelligent, cunning emperors.

4243:

has been extensively edited lately, and I'd appreciate others' views.

3839:

I've added something rough, mostly based on chapter ten of Runciman's

3370:

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/RomanMacedonia/MacedonianDynasty.htm

6784: 5877:

and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors.

4240: 4229: 4117: 3882: 3713:

which describes everything and I mean everything, to a equal extent.

3301: 2637: 2560: 2375: 1575:

Err, why? Wouldn't make much more sense to create an overview of the

986: 649:"Roman Empire" is an ethnic designation which "Greeks" don't deserve. 600:

the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that

225: 6583:

the early Byzantine culture was continuation of Hellenistic culture.

5334:

Latin. For an excellent argument as to why this is not the case see

5071:

Ireland, but explains that the name of the article is a modern name.

1960:

http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/byzantine/introduction.html

6233: 5899: 5500:

Well, sorry, I'm just sick of reading this argument over and over.

5200: 4569:

or just copy {_{User Byzantine}} (without the _) in your user box.

4505: 4282: 4165: 4102: 3710: 3495:

It also seems to be a "official policy" in the making of articles.

3373: 3266: 3248: 3185: 2897: 2873: 1203: 1184: 1171: 917: 779: 5286:

Historical scholarship. (this unsigned statement was delivered by

4028:?) in order to gain more money and taxes. Now to describe this as 3521:

It looks good, and the code is certainly much cleaner. Nice work!

2829:

template became a Featured Article Candidate. Come vote for it at

2776:

tag in the main article waiting for a Byzantologist to notice it.

6227:. btw, in which language did Anna Komnene wrote? of course Greek! 5037: 4829: 4603: 4294: 5749:

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

4850: 1769:

Where did you get that flag anyway? See Wetman's comment above.

749:

As far as I know the term "Eastern Roman Empire" could also do!

6198: 6179:

In order to clear up some things, i have to say the following:

5618:

Actually that could be a complete misnomer about Heraclius see

5209:

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

5025: 4800: 4514:

Debate: Ethnic Origins of Constantine The Greats Mother Helena

4325: 4307: 4290: 4286: 3887: 2641: 2640:

cursed the Byzantines for imprisoning him, and quoted Virgil's

2602:

territories still existed. But from Heraclius and onwards, the

2331: 2185:

Transfered last paragraph of the article to a page of its own (

1905:

Where are the versions, are they the three you recently posted?

1763: 1014: 253: 6159:

Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West & Byzantium

3118:

and this is verified by his written works. Justinian wrote in

5671:

This is our History, as Greeks, this is MY history as a Greek

4166:

The Economic History of Byzantium edited by Angeliki E. Laiou

4145:. I'll look for Haldon's book. I need a good general survey. 4124: 4037: 3824:

Nice work, we'd need more help than just two people though.--

3383:

Ethnicity of the Population of the Balkans in the middle ages

3045:

For details about the name of the Byzantines see the article

2609:

In the year 800, the composition of the Byzantine state was:

2144: 1018: 437: 5898:

He is not a St recognised by most Christians in the way say

2616:

Greece proper: about 200,000 Albanians from 2 million Greeks

440:" meaning "foreigner" in Old Western Germanic, or the word " 6193:

is still used among the Greeks to identify themselves (see

5675: 4178:

There are opposite opinions on the role of money vs barter.

4128: 3776: 3772: 3522: 2591:

be Byzantines, Diocletian himself being on the borderline.

441: 6099:

Which is pretty much the definition of original reasearch.

5213:

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at

4082:

Now notice the sentence: "the Byzantine state monopoly on

1957:

http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/per/vlasto.byzantium.html

972:

Well, yes, they do. They many times sieged Thesalloniki.

5290:- please sign your statements with four "~". Thank you) 4833:

Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel Comnenus, c.1180

4825:

The Byzantine Empire at the accession of Leo III, c.717AD

4607:

Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel Comnenus, c.1180

4599:

The Byzantine Empire at the accession of Leo III, c.717AD

2613:

Asia Minor: about 800,000 Armenians from 8 million Greeks

2453:

The title "Macedonian" has nothing to do with the modern

2288:. I'm really curious for someone to explain why the term 1153:) is changing references to the Byzantine Empire to read 766:

Yeah, but only if your purpose is to confuse the reader.

6020:" - this is just your opinion, maybe you'd care to read 1260: 934: 6651:

he is just downright wrong on several of his hypotheses

5560:

Didn't the Crusaders call the Latin Empire "Romania"?

2449:

then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?)

2021:

Done. I have created two new maps for this purpose. :)

639:"'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous" 148:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Justinian_Byzanz.png

4003:

I read somewhere that the Byzantine state monopoly on

2089: 1665:

As for the Greek thing your original article read as:

1224:

I've done some Byzantine maps for the Finnish WP. See

1144: 885: 6674:

because the majority of people think that Roman=Latin

5776:

Start by re-reading the entire article from the top.

5316:

a "fine British scholar". He wasn't that bad, but...

4774:

Thanks. looks much better now. seemed too simplistic

3988:

Looks good; the section on decline is much improved.

3488:" in order to improve the Byzantine Empire article. 2928:

Seems a bit much to have 4 names given. Also, does "

2857:

was the empire that introduced christianity to Europe

2691:

others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium

2662:

others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium

2296:

if nationality and nation did not exist at the time.

1954:

http://www.geocities.com/hellenicarmiger/History.html

5683:

it is the precursor to the Modern Hellenic Republic.

1044: 6528:of history. What you state here is correct though: 1107:Um, yes, but the fact is that Konstantinoupolis is 808:

The average person will look for "Byzantine empire"

4638:same, or whether they would disagree with me. 4578:Thanks Dryzen. I have added it to my user page :) 3767:I've just placed the article on Byzantine Emperor 2567:and settle the matter of nationality permanently. 1467:It is not in any way creating usage, as there are 646:the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself" 5003:Greek for "Byzantine Empire"), but is not needed. 4839: 4807: 6601:. As you can see I was talking about how it was 3781:Knowledge:Peer review/Manuel I Comnenus/archive1 3359:Language and ethnic orgins of MACEDONIAN DYNASTY 2644:to demonstrate his exasperation for the Greeks. 1334:What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? 1177: 6024:one more time and find out how edits are made. 4164:I forgot where I read about it. Anyway, I find 3952:Good point. Here's a reword; I'm not sure what 3567:to be in order with our naming standards (FAs: 1418:Aaarrgggh...we were just talking about this on 526:Oh brother, here begins the eternal discussion: 5119:as the first Byzantine Emperor, though on his 4181:The economy was centralized in Constantinople. 3408:What you say can only be partly accepled. The 3180:cultures like the Russian and Ottoman empires. 3053:Therefore, the name in the infobox should be: 2932:" really mean "Empire of the Romans"? In the 2695:spoke Greek in addition to their own languages 2386:was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. 318:I read "Byzantium - a history" by John Haldon 6395:In case you're interested, it seems that the 5881:Referring to "St Constantine" is pretty POV. 5869:To its inhabitants the Empire was simply the 4909:be a good idea to add sthg in the article. -- 4846:The Byzantine Empire under Basil II, c.1025AD 4108:2. actually longer than capitalism. What is 3974:Thanks! I was a bit alarmed at the revert by 3289:It is probably meant to read 18th century. -- 1508:it now. But fine, set up a vote if you want. 1342:What about the predecessors of the Albanians? 6477:like the exaggerations of other nationalists 5757:. I tought you all might be interested in.-- 3438:Later. -Deucalionite 11/26/05 3:54 P.M. EST 2936:box, it is translated as "Roman Empire". -- 431:was not recognized simply as "Roman" by the 399:I agree that the article name should remain 4959:Byzantine Empire (Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία). 4804:Map of the Byzantine Empire around 550 A.D. 3486:Template: Byzantine Empire timeline infobox 3077:Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων ; Roman (Byzantine) Empire 2805:if you would like to support the article.-- 1914:The SVG files are now appearing correctly. 1479:But the counter-argument is that there are 1132:it would be appropriate to correct that to 6409:Byzantine Studies and Modern Greek Studies 1717:That whole table is pretty anachronistic. 516:Byzantium would be a Slav or an Armenian. 6829:"Today, its study is often grouped under 6705:, but u cannot claim that it was not the 4784:The changing face of the Byzantine Empire 2701:refers to a person for whom Greek is the 1709:Bogus anachronism. Not to waste words. -- 5545:empire stems from Rome and not Greece.) 4849: 4828: 4820: 4799: 4602: 4594: 4213:Social and Economic History of Hellenism 3587:) and non-history parts can be moved to 3014:. Look it up in any English dictionary. 5968:, and its study is often grouped under 5281:Regarding Roydosan's edits + Greek POV? 4328:as his primary source of information). 4141:Good point; maybe we'll hear more from 3413:8th century, as Ostrogrorsky remembers 3201:Does this sentence seem contradictory: 2799:Knowledge:This week's improvement drive 2555:an extreme position. Nationalism was a 716:P.S.: Don´t add salt to the wound, ok? 14: 4493:This is a remarkable article indeed! 4090:) made it the longest running case of 4011:) made it the longest running case of 3763:Manuel Comnenus: Knowledge Peer Review 3705:Adam, we are having the discussion in 2294:Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 2286:Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 2250:Holy Roman Empire of the German nation 1697:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 1325:What about the Isaurian mountain folk? 634:My objections are thus to the POV that 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 6549:Original research my foot. See here: 5217:. Maybe some you are interested in.-- 5158:Alright, thanks for your notice. :-) 4479:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3752:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3695:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3663:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3634:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3609:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3498:It also simply "simplifies" things. 2831:Knowledge:Featured article candidates 1762:The currency changes frequently, the 1564:for the further history of the east. 4540: 3847:Some writers, poets, and historians: 2882:Why do you go to such great lengths? 810:. strongest undeniable reason of all 729:The template does look nice though. 25: 4536:A little something for Byzantinists 4187:There are authors who talk about a 3551:The current title of this article ( 23: 6722:Ok I'll make this simple for you. 6513:citing reliable sources who say so 6455:What? The 12th Century BC???????? 6407:were from, has a programme called 5111:Constatine I is the first emperor? 4854:Map of the Byzantine Empire c.1270 4814:Map of the Byzantine Empire c.1095 3956:has going, so I'll leave it here: 3505:, if only the "undisputed stuff". 2797:has been listed to be improved on 2264:The article was reverted again to 679:more value by differentiating it. 24: 6877: 5685: 5673: 5665: 5657: 5648: 3630:Knowledge:Featured article review 3503:Template:Byzantine Empire infobox 3480:Byzantine Empire timeline infobox 3335:Improving the article: a project? 2756:How about 'predominantly Greek'? 2621:Atlas of World Population History 2574:Are you familiar with the phrase 2282:German-speaking Holy Roman Empire 1790:Conoscimiento de todos los Reinos 315:and gradually entered common use. 210:The "cursed" name of this article 5655:I advise you to read Marcellinus 5467:no more, and certainly no less. 4841: 4809: 4544: 4253:Collapse of the Byzantine Empire 2735:Which was the reason behind the 1943:Some links as a starting point. 1807:. Any idea why the George Cross? 1612:articles that are referred to. - 332:. No "NPOV" policy in that time. 29: 6044:and there are rules to follow. 5755:Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors 5115:Constantine I is listed on the 4551:This user is interested in the 4359:Talk:Roman and Byzantine Greece 2270:French-speaking Western Francia 1988:What happened to all the maps? 248:The cursed name of this article 6372:. And there's an american one 5312:and don't forget to thank Mr. 4475:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 4086:(until the concessions to the 4007:(until the concessions to the 3605:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 3557:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 3426:Picture Not Showing on Article 3027:15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 3006:21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 2979:20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 2969:18:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 2952:18:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 2941:17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 2280:? Or the Holy Roman Empire as 2096:GNU Free Documentation License 1992:Nothing...I still see them... 1705:"Flag of the Byzantine Empire" 175:Underlying Reasons for Decline 13: 1: 6137:. That is FACT. Get over it. 5310:Derogatory use of "Byzantine" 5245:Culture template and archives 4524:Talk:Helena_of_Constantinople 4379:American Cultural Imperialism 4361:about merging that page into 4248:16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 4204:02:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 4150:20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 4136:19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 4060:18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 4045:17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 4020:05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 3993:20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 3983:19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 3969:18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 3947:17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 3930:16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 3920:11:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 3793:Literature in Legacy Section? 3757:06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 3601:History of Poland (1569-1795) 3593:History of Poland (1945–1989) 3591:(consider also an example of 3573:History of post-Soviet Russia 3569:History of Poland (1945–1989) 3539:15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 3526:20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 3516:20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 3463:00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 3418:18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC) 3400:17:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC) 3377:17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 3197:Legacy and Importance section 2825:article on the bottom of the 2340:I myself borrowed the phrase 2115: 929:18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 754:17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 741:14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 725:20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 714:19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 697:What you suggest falls under 692:19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 668:19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 662: 617:19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 590:18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 584: 558:18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 549:18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 540:18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 532:Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' 511:18:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 505: 483:18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 472:18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 466: 453:17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 417:17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 411: 387:17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 372:17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 359:17:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 342:Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' 297:17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 291: 266:16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 202:18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 187:03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 6603:viewed by its contemporaries 4461:Request for inline citations 4357:There is some discussion at 3902:17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3829:16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3819:14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3806:Possibly related, I've made 3802:07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3788:12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 3745:20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3732:17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3718:16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3700:17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3680:03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3668:02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3652:00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3639:02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 3624:23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3614:21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3353:13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 3315:13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 3305:10:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 3294:19:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 3284:04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 3270:21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 3252:21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 3220:17:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 3189:21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 3172:11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 3150:08:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 3136:08:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2026:23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1700:06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 1274:, which we modern render as 844:20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 243:21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 233:16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 220:23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 7: 4194:The literacy rate was high. 3779:) on the Peer Review page ( 3597:People's Republic of Poland 3565:History of Byzantine Empire 3089:22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 2901:15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2877:23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC) 2854:preserved ancient knowledge 2838:20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC) 2810:17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 2266:Greek-speaking Roman Empire 2189:Derogatory use of Byzantine 2181:Derogatory use of Byzantine 2076:OK, 'tis done - reverted.-- 1420:Talk:List of Roman Emperors 831:13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 783:06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 163:the Times history of Europe 127:04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 10: 6882: 5251:Template:Byzantine_culture 5117:List of Byzantine Emperors 5080:would be more appropriate. 4574:15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4531:14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4509:01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4484:17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 4471:Knowledge:Inline citations 4453:12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 4443:23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4432:22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4421:16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4410:15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4399:15:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4389:14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 4374:15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 4369:, if anyone has thoughts. 4348:17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 4333:14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 4316:14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 4302:19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 4277:16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 4220:05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 3808:Template:Byzantine culture 3577:History of the Netherlands 3508:easier , simpler , better 3330:14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2781:18:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 1974:15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1948:02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1919:23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1910:18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1900:10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1885:15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1875:00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1865:18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1849:09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1836:19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1827:18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1812:15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 1797:13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 880:21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 170:16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 154:15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 138:15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 6862:17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 6846:09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 6816:00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 6764:19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6741:18:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6715:17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6693:17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6682:15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6669:15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6658:02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6623:19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6610:19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6590:18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6566:18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6545:17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6520:16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 6506:17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6495:17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6484:14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6470:14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6440:16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6418:13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6383:13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6361:13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6344:09:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6314:14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 6304:18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6270:17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6241:17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6189:A word that derives from 6174:16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6152:15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6142:15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6123:15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6112:15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6060:15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6049:15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6029:15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 6008:14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5993:14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5982:14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5929:14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5911:14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5890:14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5862:14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5848:13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5830:14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5817:13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5798:12:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 5781:13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 5565:20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 5550:17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 5540:12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 5505:15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 5472:10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 5434:15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5406:13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5380:13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5343:11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5321:11:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5299:07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 5097:14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 5088:12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 5054:00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 5012:10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 4526:, if anyone has thoughts 4268:00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 2752:16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2680:10:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2653:10:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2543:12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 2533:03:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2520:12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 2507:12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 2493:03:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2480:03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2434:03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2415:03:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2405:01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2391:01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 2368:23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2354:22:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2312:18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2301:16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2257:16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 2217:23:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2200:19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2120:21:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) 2102:11:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2086:09:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) 2052:01:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) 1657:17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1600:16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1571:02:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1553:22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1528:04:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1521:04:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1503:04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1496:04:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1475:04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1464:04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1441:04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1434:04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1414:04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1241:19:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1187:11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1174:11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1030:19:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1008:22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) 544:Agreed with Flamarandre. 5949:Empire of Constantinople 5941:The Empire of the Greeks 5762:22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 5744:21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5727:19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5714:17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5692:15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 5627:13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5589:14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5574:13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 5276:13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 5258:22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 5240:01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 5222:18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 5204:07:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 5193:00:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 5170:22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 5150:22:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 5139:21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 4990:16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 4978:14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 4964:02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 4953:01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 4935:17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 4925:14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 4914:21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 4898:15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 4793:15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 4779:07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 4682:The Empire of the Greeks 4677:21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 4520:Helena_of_Constantinople 3858:Dionysius the Areopagite 2801:. You can add your vote 2582:state, including modern 2278:English-speaking England 2225:23:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2208:20:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2170:13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2151:12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2131:21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2072:06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2063:05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2014:06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 1997:05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 1713:04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1649:14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1616:16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1583:05:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1556:It seems to me that the 1537:05:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1512:04:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1487:04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1449:04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1426:04:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1397:00:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1249:00:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1232:17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1217:17:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1206:12:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1165:05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1119:11:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1085:10:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1062:09:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1000:20:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) 535:by the majority of ppl. 6399:, in the country where 4767:13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 4758:12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 4739:02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 4729:23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4719:23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4703:23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4694:23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4668:22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4658:22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4643:21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4618:08:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4588:Which was the Stronger? 4583:21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 4567:Template:User Byzantine 4340:of whatever nationality 2670:its history. Byzantine 2037:Byzantine disambig page 1803:Good work on the flags 1773:21:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1730:13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1721:11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1284:Constitutio Antoniniana 1140:11:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1103:10:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1073:10:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) 256:for this state? It was 6808: 5165:Counter Vandalism Unit 5134:Counter Vandalism Unit 5046:Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία 4855: 4847: 4834: 4826: 4815: 4810:File:Byzantium1095.PNG 4805: 4608: 4600: 4260:relative to each other 4226:Fall of Constantinople 3841:Byzantine Civilisation 3547:Rewrite, move or de-FA 2795:History of the Balkans 2623:, Harmondsworth, 1978) 1679:(Eastern) Roman Empire 1226:fi:Bysantin valtakunta 6799: 6378:. Any last comments? 6265:of Macedonian stock?) 4853: 4845: 4832: 4824: 4813: 4803: 4606: 4598: 4489:A Remarkable Article! 4088:Italian sea republics 4009:Italian sea republics 3344:, from Late October. 654:...and that's all. — 444:" meaning "black" in 382:I can live with that 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Byzantine Empire 6749:Empire of the Greeks 6397:University of Vienna 4105:during 7 centuries. 3878:Theodore the Studite 3691:history of Country X 3063:Empire of the Romans 3018:is referring to the 2989:I vote to just have: 2921:Empire of the Romans 2384:Eastern Roman Empire 1643:Eastern Roman Empire 1639:Eastern Roman Empire 1543:Western Roman Empire 1408:Eastern Roman Empire 1402:Eastern Roman Empire 1359:outside the empire. 1038:- 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 6628:of Greek studies. 6289:of Macedonian stock 6195:Names of the Greeks 5215:Talk:Constantine XI 4322:Battle of Manzikert 4066:I read the article 4050:I don't know where 3585:History of Scotland 2823:Names of the Greeks 2816:Names of the Greeks 2464:Battle of Manzikert 2230:Rise of nationalism 1149:An anonymous user ( 146:How about this map: 6729:Talk:Constantine I 5977:pushing it a bit. 5871:Christian Orthodox 5709:Link doesnt work. 4856: 4848: 4835: 4827: 4816: 4806: 4711:Imperium Graecorum 4609: 4601: 4114:communist manifest 3561:Indo-Greek Kingdom 3184:rug of obscurity. 3066:(Byzantine Empire) 3060:Imperium Romanorum 2930:Imperium Romanorum 2924:(Byzantine Empire) 2918:Imperium Romanorum 2846:Concluding remarks 1931:Byzantine Heraldry 1736:User:207.5.206.179 1545:? Simply limiting 856:Byzantine Medicine 850:Byzantine Medicine 92:the article says: 88:The causes of fall 6795:Sir George Finlay 6165:Slavic Scriptures 6135:original research 6090:Except your own. 5966:Hellenistic World 5875:Saint Constantine 5288:User:86.138.0.221 4689:Is this right??? 4562: 4561: 3893:Gregory Nazianzus 3873:Theodorus Studita 3769:Manuel I Comnenus 3581:History of Russia 3484:Hi, I made this " 3461: 3155:How to edit this? 2956:In fact, was the 2827:History of Greece 2789:Improvement Drive 2455:Macedonian Slavic 2245:French Revolution 2119: 2084: 2050: 1092:Constantinoupolis 699:original research 666: 588: 509: 490:political reality 470: 446:Hellenistic Greek 415: 295: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6873: 5873:Roman Empire of 5687: 5679: 5667: 5659: 5651: 5595:Regarding a new 5269:John II Komnenos 5263:John II Komnenos 5229:John II Komnenos 5034:Byzantine Empire 4843: 4811: 4648:Sources required 4556: 4555:Byzantine Empire 4548: 4541: 4367:Byzantine Empire 4078:by John Haldon). 4026:Boston tea party 3863:John of Damascus 3810:and added it to 3589:Byzantine Empire 3553:Byzantine Empire 3457: 3410:limes danubianus 3389:user:Intranetman 3275:Term "Byzantine" 3057:Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων 2997:Byzantine Empire 2994:Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων 2915:Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων 2576:ethnic-minoritiy 2274:medieval England 2117: 2113: 2111: 2082: 2048: 1562:Byzantine Empire 967:User:Josh Grosse 793:Oh brother, the 664: 660: 658: 586: 582: 580: 507: 503: 501: 468: 464: 462: 429:Byzantine Empire 413: 409: 407: 401:Byzantine Empire 293: 289: 287: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6881: 6880: 6876: 6875: 6874: 6872: 6871: 6870: 6854: 6517:Septentrionalis 6481:Septentrionalis 5904:John Chrysostom 5769: 5751: 5610: 5601: 5465:Successor state 5283: 5265: 5247: 5211: 5167: 5136: 5113: 4945: 4906: 4842:File:1025AD.PNG 4786: 4684: 4650: 4590: 4563: 4554: 4538: 4516: 4504:describe this. 4491: 4463: 4381: 4355: 4255: 4237: 4217:Septentrionalis 4189:command economy 4099:planned economy 4092:planned economy 4068:planned economy 4030:planned economy 4013:planned economy 4001: 3999:Planned economy 3912: 3853:John Chrysostom 3795: 3765: 3549: 3482: 3444: 3428: 3385: 3361: 3337: 3277: 3262: 3199: 3157: 3120:Classical Latin 2909: 2907:Name in infobox 2884: 2848: 2819: 2791: 2767: 2716:. You speak of 2458:were an ethnic 2232: 2183: 2092: 2039: 1986: 1707: 1404: 1263: 1180: 1147: 1047: 1039: 937: 913: 888: 867: 852: 305:Hieronymus Wolf 250: 212: 177: 119: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6879: 6869: 6868: 6853: 6850: 6849: 6848: 6838: 6827: 6790: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6777: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6767: 6766: 6720: 6719: 6718: 6717: 6696: 6695: 6661: 6660: 6615: 6614: 6613: 6612: 6578: 6577: 6558: 6557: 6537: 6536: 6525: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6487: 6486: 6451: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6364: 6363: 6332: 6331: 6327: 6326: 6322: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6293:of Greek stock 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6244: 6243: 6229: 6225:Edict of Milan 6214: 6213: 6212: 6205: 6202: 6187: 6184:List of saints 6146: 6126: 6125: 6063: 6062: 6052: 6051: 6032: 6031: 6015: 5996: 5995: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5893: 5892: 5867: 5865: 5864: 5853: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5837: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5809: 5808: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5786: 5784: 5783: 5768: 5765: 5750: 5747: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5717: 5716: 5706: 5705: 5700: 5699: 5635: 5634: 5609: 5606: 5600: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5581: 5558: 5557: 5532: 5531: 5526: 5525: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5460: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5372: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5323: 5302: 5301: 5282: 5279: 5264: 5261: 5246: 5243: 5210: 5207: 5196: 5195: 5185: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5163: 5153: 5152: 5132: 5112: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5081: 5078: 5075: 5072: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5042:Russian Empire 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5004: 4993: 4992: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4944: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4905: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4888: 4885: 4882: 4879: 4876: 4873: 4870: 4867: 4864: 4861: 4785: 4782: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4722: 4721: 4683: 4680: 4649: 4646: 4611: 4589: 4586: 4560: 4559: 4549: 4539: 4537: 4534: 4515: 4512: 4490: 4487: 4462: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4424: 4423: 4413: 4412: 4402: 4401: 4380: 4377: 4354: 4351: 4254: 4251: 4236: 4234:Loukas Notaras 4223: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4192: 4185: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4159: 4158: 4153: 4152: 4080: 4079: 4063: 4062: 4000: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3972: 3971: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3933: 3932: 3911: 3908: 3906: 3896: 3895: 3890: 3885: 3880: 3875: 3870: 3865: 3860: 3855: 3849: 3848: 3837: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3794: 3791: 3764: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3707:Roman republic 3703: 3702: 3673: 3671: 3670: 3656: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3548: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3529: 3528: 3481: 3478: 3443: 3440: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3403: 3402: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3360: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3336: 3333: 3318: 3317: 3297: 3296: 3276: 3273: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3215:plagiarized?-- 3212: 3211: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3181: 3165: 3164: 3156: 3153: 3124:Medieval Greek 3111: 3110: 3102: 3097: 3094: 3092: 3091: 3070: 3068: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3052: 3049: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3029: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2916: 2908: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2893: 2883: 2880: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2855: 2847: 2844: 2842: 2818: 2813: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2766: 2763: 2722:Greek-speaking 2699:Greek-speaking 2684: 2683: 2682: 2625: 2624: 2617: 2614: 2418: 2417: 2394: 2393: 2315: 2314: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2210: 2209: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2122: 2121: 2091: 2088: 2074: 2073: 2065: 2064: 2038: 2035: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2000: 1999: 1985: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1951: 1950: 1933: 1928: 1926: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1800: 1799: 1775: 1774: 1767: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747:Mediterranean. 1732: 1731: 1726:That motto! -- 1723: 1722: 1706: 1703: 1674: 1673: 1663: 1651: 1650: 1618: 1617: 1606:brief overview 1585: 1584: 1539: 1538: 1514: 1513: 1489: 1488: 1453: 1451: 1450: 1428: 1427: 1403: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1262: 1259: 1251: 1250: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1208: 1207: 1190: 1179: 1176: 1167: 1166: 1151:212.113.164.98 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1113:Constantinople 1105: 1104: 1075: 1074: 1046: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1010: 1002: 1001: 970: 958: 950: 945: 936: 933: 932: 931: 912: 909: 887: 884: 883: 882: 866: 863: 861: 851: 848: 847: 846: 837: 824: 823: 822: 821: 814: 813: 812: 811: 802: 801: 800: 799: 787: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 759: 758: 757: 756: 744: 743: 706: 705: 684: 683: 676: 671: 670: 651: 650: 647: 640: 636: 635: 631: 630: 593: 592: 569: 568: 528: 527: 523: 522: 521: 520: 475: 474: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 392: 391: 390: 389: 377: 376: 375: 374: 362: 361: 352: 349: 338: 337: 333: 326: 316: 300: 299: 275: 274: 249: 246: 211: 208: 206: 195: 194: 176: 173: 159: 158: 157: 156: 141: 140: 118: 115: 113: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6878: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6860: 6847: 6844: 6839: 6836: 6832: 6828: 6824: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6817: 6814: 6807: 6805: 6798: 6796: 6786: 6781: 6780: 6779: 6778: 6771: 6770: 6769: 6768: 6765: 6762: 6758: 6755: 6750: 6745: 6744: 6743: 6742: 6739: 6734: 6730: 6725: 6716: 6713: 6708: 6704: 6700: 6699: 6698: 6697: 6694: 6691: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6680: 6675: 6671: 6670: 6667: 6659: 6656: 6652: 6647: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6637: 6633: 6629: 6625: 6624: 6621: 6611: 6608: 6604: 6600: 6596: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6591: 6588: 6584: 6576: 6573: 6572: 6571: 6568: 6567: 6564: 6556: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6547: 6546: 6543: 6535: 6531: 6530: 6529: 6521: 6518: 6514: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6504: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6493: 6485: 6482: 6478: 6474: 6473: 6472: 6471: 6468: 6463: 6458: 6454: 6441: 6438: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6419: 6416: 6412: 6410: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6390: 6389: 6384: 6381: 6377: 6374: 6371: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6362: 6359: 6355: 6351: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6342: 6337: 6329: 6328: 6323: 6315: 6312: 6307: 6306: 6305: 6302: 6298: 6294: 6290: 6286: 6281: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6277: 6276: 6271: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6242: 6239: 6235: 6230: 6228: 6226: 6220: 6215: 6210: 6206: 6203: 6200: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6185: 6181: 6180: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6172: 6168: 6166: 6162: 6160: 6154: 6153: 6150: 6144: 6143: 6140: 6136: 6131: 6124: 6121: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6110: 6106: 6105: 6101: 6100: 6095: 6094: 6089: 6088: 6083: 6082: 6077: 6076: 6070: 6069: 6061: 6058: 6054: 6053: 6050: 6047: 6043: 6038: 6034: 6033: 6030: 6027: 6023: 6019: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6006: 6000: 5994: 5991: 5986: 5985: 5984: 5983: 5980: 5974: 5973: 5971: 5967: 5961: 5957: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5940: 5930: 5927: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5912: 5909: 5905: 5901: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5891: 5888: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5879: 5878: 5876: 5872: 5863: 5860: 5855: 5854: 5849: 5846: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5838: 5831: 5828: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5818: 5815: 5805: 5804: 5799: 5796: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5782: 5779: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5767:Greek empire? 5764: 5763: 5760: 5756: 5746: 5745: 5742: 5736: 5728: 5725: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5715: 5712: 5708: 5707: 5702: 5701: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5690: 5684: 5680: 5677: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5652: 5647: 5643: 5639: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5625: 5621: 5616: 5613: 5605: 5598: 5597:Byzantine Law 5590: 5587: 5582: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5572: 5567: 5566: 5563: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5548: 5542: 5541: 5538: 5528: 5527: 5522: 5521: 5506: 5503: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5473: 5470: 5466: 5461: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5435: 5432: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5407: 5404: 5399: 5398: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5381: 5378: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5344: 5341: 5337: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5322: 5319: 5315: 5314:Edward Gibbon 5311: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5300: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5289: 5278: 5277: 5274: 5270: 5260: 5259: 5256: 5252: 5242: 5241: 5238: 5232: 5230: 5224: 5223: 5220: 5216: 5206: 5205: 5202: 5194: 5191: 5186: 5182: 5177: 5176: 5171: 5166: 5161: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5151: 5148: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5135: 5130: 5126: 5122: 5118: 5098: 5095: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5086: 5082: 5079: 5076: 5073: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5055: 5052: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5013: 5010: 5005: 5002: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4991: 4988: 4983: 4979: 4976: 4972: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4962: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4951: 4936: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4923: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4912: 4899: 4896: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4886: 4883: 4880: 4877: 4874: 4871: 4868: 4865: 4862: 4859: 4852: 4844: 4838: 4831: 4823: 4819: 4812: 4802: 4798: 4795: 4794: 4791: 4781: 4780: 4777: 4768: 4765: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4737: 4731: 4730: 4727: 4720: 4717: 4712: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4701: 4696: 4695: 4692: 4688: 4679: 4678: 4675: 4670: 4669: 4666: 4660: 4659: 4656: 4645: 4644: 4641: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4624: 4620: 4619: 4616: 4605: 4597: 4593: 4585: 4584: 4581: 4576: 4575: 4572: 4568: 4558: 4557: 4550: 4547: 4543: 4542: 4533: 4532: 4529: 4528:E-mail adress 4525: 4521: 4511: 4510: 4507: 4501: 4497: 4494: 4486: 4485: 4482: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4454: 4451: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4441: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4430: 4422: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4411: 4408: 4404: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4387: 4376: 4375: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4350: 4349: 4346: 4341: 4335: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4318: 4317: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4303: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4279: 4278: 4275: 4270: 4269: 4266: 4261: 4250: 4249: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4222: 4221: 4218: 4214: 4205: 4202: 4198: 4193: 4190: 4186: 4183: 4180: 4177: 4174: 4170: 4169: 4167: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4155: 4154: 4151: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4121: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4106: 4104: 4100: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4084:foreign trade 4077: 4076:0-7524-2343-6 4074: 4069: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4022: 4021: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4005:foreign trade 3994: 3991: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3981: 3977: 3970: 3967: 3964: 3958: 3957: 3955: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3939: 3936: 3931: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3907: 3904: 3903: 3900: 3894: 3891: 3889: 3886: 3884: 3881: 3879: 3876: 3874: 3871: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3856: 3854: 3851: 3850: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3842: 3834: 3833: 3830: 3827: 3826:86.141.70.254 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3817: 3813: 3812:Byzantine art 3809: 3804: 3803: 3800: 3799:86.141.70.254 3790: 3789: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3733: 3730: 3728: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3701: 3698: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3669: 3666: 3664: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3640: 3637: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3612: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3524: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3514: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3499: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3487: 3477: 3476: 3471: 3468: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3449: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3419: 3416: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3378: 3375: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3343: 3342:user:Attilios 3332: 3331: 3328: 3322: 3316: 3313: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3303: 3295: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3272: 3271: 3268: 3253: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3209: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3190: 3187: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3152: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3109: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3100: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3048: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3004: 2996: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2980: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2923: 2920: 2917: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2902: 2899: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2868: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2745: 2741: 2738: 2734: 2732: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2713: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2694: 2690: 2681: 2678: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2645: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2600: 2597: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2584:nation-states 2581: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2505: 2500: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2488: 2482: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2456: 2451: 2450: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2392: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2346: 2343: 2338: 2335: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324:"nationality" 2319: 2313: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2216: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2150: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2118: 2112: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2101: 2097: 2087: 2085: 2079: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2051: 2045: 2034: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2024: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1975: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1938: 1932: 1927: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1886: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1759:contentious). 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1741: 1740:User:Rangeley 1737: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1712: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1692: 1691:24 June 2005 1690: 1686: 1682: 1680: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1656: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1626: 1623: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1599: 1596: 1591: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1527: 1522: 1520: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1502: 1497: 1495: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1463: 1460: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1440: 1435: 1433: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1409: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1320: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1300: 1297: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1258: 1254: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1240: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1186: 1175: 1173: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1156: 1155:Eastern Roman 1152: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1102: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1072: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1042: 1036: 1031: 1029: 1023: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1009: 1007: 999: 995: 994: 993: 992: 988: 983: 982: 976: 973: 969: 968: 964: 957: 956: 949: 944: 943: 930: 927: 922: 921: 920: 919: 911:Empress Irene 908: 907: 902: 901: 895: 894: 881: 878: 873: 872: 871: 862: 859: 857: 845: 842: 838: 835: 834: 833: 832: 829: 818: 817: 816: 815: 809: 806: 805: 804: 803: 796: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 785: 784: 781: 769: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 755: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 742: 739: 735: 734: 733: 732: 727: 726: 723: 717: 715: 712: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 690: 682: 677: 673: 672: 669: 665: 659: 653: 652: 648: 645: 641: 638: 637: 633: 632: 627: 626: 625: 624: 619: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 591: 587: 581: 575: 571: 570: 567: 563: 562: 561: 559: 556: 551: 550: 547: 542: 541: 538: 533: 525: 524: 519: 514: 513: 512: 508: 502: 495: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 481: 473: 469: 463: 457: 456: 455: 454: 451: 447: 443: 439: 434: 430: 418: 414: 408: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 388: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 373: 370: 366: 365: 364: 363: 360: 357: 353: 350: 347: 346: 345: 343: 334: 331: 327: 324: 323:0-7524-2343-6 321: 317: 314: 310: 309:Edward Gibbon 306: 302: 301: 298: 294: 288: 281: 277: 276: 273: 270: 269: 268: 267: 264: 259: 255: 245: 244: 241: 235: 234: 231: 227: 222: 221: 218: 207: 204: 203: 200: 191: 190: 189: 188: 185: 181: 172: 171: 168: 164: 155: 152: 149: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 136: 131: 130: 129: 128: 125: 114: 111: 110: 106: 103: 100: 96: 95: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6855: 6835:Modern Greek 6822: 6809: 6802: 6800: 6791: 6754:Roman Empire 6748: 6732: 6723: 6721: 6706: 6673: 6672: 6662: 6650: 6645: 6638: 6634: 6630: 6626: 6616: 6602: 6598: 6582: 6579: 6574: 6569: 6559: 6548: 6538: 6532: 6526: 6512: 6488: 6476: 6461: 6456: 6452: 6450: 6408: 6353: 6335: 6333: 6297:this article 6292: 6288: 6285:Greek Empire 6245: 6222: 6218: 6209:Roman Empire 6190: 6164: 6158: 6155: 6145: 6134: 6129: 6127: 6107: 6098: 6097: 6092: 6091: 6086: 6085: 6080: 6079: 6074: 6073: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6041: 6036: 6017: 6001: 5997: 5975: 5963: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5953:Roman Empire 5950: 5946: 5942: 5938: 5937: 5880: 5868: 5866: 5836: 5810: 5785: 5770: 5752: 5741:Bigdaddy1204 5737: 5733: 5682: 5681: 5670: 5669: 5662: 5661: 5654: 5653: 5645: 5644: 5640: 5636: 5617: 5614: 5611: 5602: 5568: 5559: 5543: 5533: 5284: 5273:Bigdaddy1204 5266: 5248: 5237:Bigdaddy1204 5233: 5225: 5212: 5197: 5180: 5125:Theodosius I 5114: 5045: 5033: 5029: 5028:u can read: 5000: 4946: 4943:Name (again) 4932:86.138.0.221 4907: 4887: 4884: 4881: 4878: 4875: 4872: 4869: 4866: 4863: 4860: 4857: 4836: 4817: 4796: 4790:Bigdaddy1204 4787: 4773: 4750: 4732: 4723: 4710: 4697: 4686: 4685: 4674:Bigdaddy1204 4671: 4661: 4651: 4640:Bigdaddy1204 4636: 4632: 4628: 4625: 4621: 4610: 4591: 4580:Bigdaddy1204 4577: 4564: 4552: 4517: 4502: 4498: 4495: 4492: 4464: 4429:Bigdaddy1204 4425: 4407:Tom Harrison 4386:Bigdaddy1204 4382: 4371:Tom Harrison 4363:Roman Greece 4356: 4353:Roman Greece 4345:Bigdaddy1204 4339: 4336: 4319: 4305: 4299:Bigdaddy1204 4280: 4271: 4265:Bigdaddy1204 4259: 4256: 4245:Tom Harrison 4238: 4212: 4210: 4147:Tom Harrison 4122: 4107: 4096: 4081: 4057:Tom Harrison 4023: 4002: 3990:Tom Harrison 3980:Bigdaddy1204 3973: 3966:Tom Harrison 3944:Bigdaddy1204 3940: 3937: 3934: 3927:Tom Harrison 3917:Bigdaddy1204 3913: 3905: 3899:Tom Harrison 3897: 3868:Anna Comnena 3840: 3838: 3816:Tom Harrison 3805: 3796: 3785:Bigdaddy1204 3766: 3742:Bigdaddy1204 3738: 3704: 3672: 3655: 3649:Bigdaddy1204 3645: 3552: 3550: 3523:Tom Harrison 3510: 3507: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3490: 3483: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3452: 3445: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3409: 3386: 3362: 3338: 3323: 3319: 3298: 3278: 3263: 3213: 3206: 3200: 3166: 3160: 3144: 3140: 3139: 3128:Vulgar Latin 3112: 3106: 3101: 3093: 3084:as well. -- 3082:Roman Empire 3076: 3069: 3044: 3015: 3011: 3009: 3000: 2961: 2958:Roman Empire 2934:Roman Empire 2929: 2927: 2910: 2885: 2872: 2849: 2841: 2820: 2793:The article 2792: 2784: 2773: 2768: 2758: 2755: 2743: 2742: 2730: 2728: 2727: 2721: 2717: 2711: 2709: 2708: 2702: 2698: 2692: 2688: 2686: 2685: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2646: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2620: 2608: 2604:overwhelming 2603: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2564: 2556: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2536: 2523: 2514: 2510: 2498: 2496: 2483: 2472: 2467: 2459: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2421: 2419: 2395: 2360: 2357: 2347: 2342:Greek nation 2341: 2339: 2336: 2327: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2269: 2265: 2263: 2260: 2249: 2240: 2237:nation-state 2236: 2233: 2211: 2193: 2186: 2184: 2093: 2075: 2040: 2029: 2023:Bigdaddy1204 2020: 1987: 1952: 1937:Latin Empire 1930: 1929: 1925: 1893: 1842: 1815: 1801: 1789: 1779: 1776: 1733: 1708: 1693: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1666: 1652: 1642: 1638: 1627: 1621: 1619: 1609: 1605: 1589: 1586: 1576: 1558:Roman Empire 1555: 1547:Roman Empire 1540: 1523: 1515: 1498: 1490: 1480: 1468: 1466: 1455: 1452: 1436: 1429: 1407: 1405: 1386: 1367: 1362: 1361: 1355: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1255: 1252: 1236: 1189: 1181: 1168: 1154: 1148: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1108: 1106: 1095: 1091: 1078: 1076: 1055: 1048: 1040: 1033: 1024: 1012: 1011: 1003: 984: 977: 974: 971: 962: 959: 951: 946: 938: 914: 903: 896: 889: 868: 860: 854:I started a 853: 825: 807: 794: 786: 776: 728: 718: 707: 685: 643: 620: 605: 601: 597: 594: 552: 543: 529: 493: 489: 476: 432: 425: 400: 339: 329: 279: 271: 257: 251: 240:Bigdaddy1204 236: 223: 217:Bigdaddy1204 213: 205: 196: 184:Bigdaddy1204 182: 178: 167:Bigdaddy1204 162: 160: 151:Mor Vilkacis 135:Mor Vilkacis 124:Bigdaddy1204 120: 112: 107: 104: 101: 97: 93: 91: 60: 43: 37: 6831:Hellenology 6534:continuous. 6437:Adam Bishop 6401:Fallmerayer 5970:Hellenology 5724:Adam Bishop 5547:Adam Bishop 5502:Adam Bishop 5431:Adam Bishop 4950:Adam Bishop 4736:Adam Bishop 4467:my critique 4440:Adam Bishop 3677:Adam Bishop 2949:Adam Bishop 2737:autocephaly 2731:nationality 2714:its history 2675:thoughts?-- 2672:nationality 2427:proto-Greek 2412:Adam Bishop 2309:Adam Bishop 2241:nationality 2223:Adam Bishop 2206:Adam Bishop 2070:Adam Bishop 1994:Adam Bishop 1833:Adam Bishop 1771:Adam Bishop 1719:Adam Bishop 1535:Adam Bishop 1510:Adam Bishop 1485:Adam Bishop 1447:Adam Bishop 1424:Adam Bishop 1395:Adam Bishop 1247:Adam Bishop 1215:Adam Bishop 1163:Adam Bishop 1051:Hellenistic 1028:Adam Bishop 1006:Adam Bishop 942:User:szopen 900:Josh Grosse 877:Adam Bishop 722:Adam Bishop 560:P.S.: I do 369:Adam Bishop 313:Montesquieu 36:This is an 6405:Metternich 6354:misleading 5947:" or the " 5759:Panairjdde 5469:Flamarande 5377:Flamarande 5318:Flamarande 5219:Panairjdde 5160:Funnybunny 5147:Flamarande 5129:Funnybunny 4747:Trojan War 4615:Flamarande 4418:Flamarande 4396:Flamarande 4133:Flamarande 4110:capitalism 4042:Flamarande 4034:capitalism 3715:Flamarande 3513:Flamarande 3475:Flamarande 3448:added back 2966:Theathenae 2770:User:AlexR 2729:Byzantine 2712:throughout 2677:Theathenae 2668:throughout 2561:Liutpand's 2380:Diocletian 2149:Jniemenmaa 1822:symbolism. 1364:Manzikert. 1230:Jniemenmaa 1079:in English 893:ErdemTuzun 828:Flamarande 738:Flamarande 711:Flamarande 614:Flamarande 555:Flamarande 537:Flamarande 494:ethnically 384:Flamarande 356:Flamarande 340:(see this 230:Flamarande 6785:anonymous 6761:Hectorian 6712:Hectorian 6570:I quote: 6301:Hectorian 6291:, id est 6263:Alexander 6255:Hectorian 6238:Hectorian 6163:, or the 6068:research. 6042:wikipedia 6022:WP:POLICY 5807:Laonicus? 5051:Hectorian 4911:Greece666 4565:Found at 4241:Mehmed II 4230:Mehmed II 4118:Karl Marx 3976:Mais oui! 3954:Mais oui! 3883:Procopius 3771:(reigned 3687:Country X 3621:Stbalbach 2638:Liutprand 2376:Armenians 2326:was made 1857:user page 1751:general). 1614:Chris5369 1581:Chris5369 1551:Chris5369 1296:culturaly 1276:Byzantine 1096:basileus. 987:Heraclius 709:Empire". 564:So do I. 344:article) 226:Macedonia 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 6738:Roydosan 6707:cultural 6703:Roydosan 6679:Roydosan 6655:Roydosan 6587:Roydosan 6542:Roydosan 6467:Roydosan 6341:Roydosan 6234:bouzouki 6139:Roydosan 6109:Roydosan 6039:" -: --> 6005:Roydosan 5979:Roydosan 5908:Roydosan 5900:St Peter 5845:Zeusnoos 5814:Colossus 5778:Colossus 5711:Colossus 5704:improve. 5689:Roydosan 5624:Roydosan 5586:Colossus 5571:Roydosan 5537:Roydosan 5403:Roydosan 5340:Roydosan 5296:Roydosan 5190:Colossus 4987:Colossus 4971:Colossus 4961:Colossus 4700:Colossus 4283:Bulgaria 4103:monopoly 3915:itself? 3711:Portugal 3397:Colossus 2976:Colossus 2835:Colossus 2778:Colossus 2774:clean up 2760:Bathrobe 2749:Colossus 2650:Colossus 2588:distinct 2460:minority 2351:Colossus 2298:Colossus 2254:Colossus 2215:Colossus 2198:Colossus 2116:contribs 1945:Dragases 1916:Dragases 1897:Dragases 1872:Dragases 1846:Dragases 1805:Dragases 1794:Dragases 1689:Bathrobe 1671:Colossus 1631:Colossus 1610:seperate 1356:in spite 1239:Variable 1134:München. 1130:Munshen, 1056:vasileîs 926:Astavrou 751:Astavrou 663:contribs 642:"It was 585:contribs 574:template 506:contribs 467:contribs 433:majority 412:contribs 292:contribs 199:Astavrou 197:Regards 117:New Maps 6701:Sorry, 5255:Zeality 5121:article 5040:, past 5038:Ireland 4904:Theatre 4448:march!" 4295:Albania 3910:Economy 3536:Squalla 3442:Infobox 3327:Ferrara 3122:and in 3108:ROMANS. 3071:Q.E.D. 2718:neutral 2565:nations 2557:gradual 1969:Thanks. 1755:anyway. 1588:empire 1319:ducates 1261:Apology 1138:Tkinias 1101:Tkinias 1071:Tkinias 1060:Tkinias 935:Khazars 906:ansible 841:Str1977 675:though. 610:St Paul 254:exonyms 133:region. 109:Yarovit 105:Cheers 39:archive 6859:Dryzen 6843:Varana 6813:Miskin 6690:Miskin 6666:Miskin 6620:Miskin 6607:Miskin 6563:Miskin 6503:Miskin 6492:Miskin 6380:Miskin 6358:Miskin 6311:Dryzen 6267:Dryzen 6259:Miskin 6199:Romans 6171:Miskin 6149:Dryzen 6120:Miskin 6057:Miskin 6046:Miskin 6026:Miskin 5990:Miskin 5945:Greece 5926:Miskin 5902:or St 5887:Miskin 5859:Miskin 5827:Miskin 5795:Miskin 5562:john k 5179:there 5094:Dryzen 5085:Varana 5026:Greece 5009:Varana 4975:Dryzen 4922:Dryzen 4895:Dryzen 4764:Dryzen 4755:Miskin 4726:Miskin 4716:Miskin 4665:Miskin 4655:Miskin 4571:Dryzen 4450:Dryzen 4330:Miskin 4326:Strabo 4313:Miskin 4308:Empire 4291:Turkey 4287:Greece 4274:Miskin 3888:Kassia 3459:(Talk) 3454:JW1805 3350:Miskin 3281:Wetman 3260:Images 3217:JW1805 3169:Wetman 3147:Miskin 3133:Miskin 3116:Romaic 3086:JW1805 3024:Miskin 3020:Romans 3012:Romaic 3003:JW1805 2962:per se 2938:JW1805 2807:Fenice 2703:mother 2642:Aeneid 2599:Ethnic 2540:Miskin 2517:Miskin 2504:Miskin 2477:Miskin 2473:nation 2431:Miskin 2388:Decius 2365:Miskin 2332:nation 2330:(see: 2168:Leithp 2129:Leithp 2110:Preost 2100:Leithp 2032:Miskin 1971:Dryzen 1907:Dryzen 1882:Dryzen 1862:Dryzen 1824:Dryzen 1809:Dryzen 1783:Miskin 1764:follis 1728:Wetman 1711:Wetman 1655:Decius 1647:Decius 1622:purely 1577:entire 1526:Decius 1519:Decius 1501:Decius 1494:Decius 1473:Decius 1439:Decius 1432:Decius 1412:Decius 1145:Naming 1126:Munich 1015:France 991:djnjwd 981:szopen 955:szopen 886:Thanks 865:Yarmuk 798:fact). 795:cursed 768:Miskin 731:Miskin 703:Miskin 681:Miskin 657:Preost 623:Miskin 579:Preost 566:Miskin 546:Miskin 518:Miskin 500:Preost 480:Miskin 461:Preost 450:Miskin 406:Preost 286:Preost 263:Miskin 6852:Terms 6415:Tēlex 6191:Roman 5530:goes. 5524:West. 4776:Cwiki 4691:Cwiki 4477::).-- 4201:Error 4172:time. 4143:Error 4125:Incas 4052:Error 4038:trade 4017:Error 3599:, or 3415:Aldux 3312:Tokle 3291:Tokle 3208:1461. 3016:Roman 2892:line. 2803:there 2633:name. 2580:every 2272:? Or 2145:IANAL 2078:cjllw 2044:cjllw 1880:also. 1272:Roman 1268:Greek 1045:Greek 1019:Spain 689:Tokle 438:Welsh 261:all. 16:< 6413:. -- 6403:and 5943:", " 5676:York 5620:here 5599:page 5336:here 4858:(3) 4837:(2) 4818:(1) 4365:and 4293:and 4129:Silk 4101:and 4073:ISBN 3777:1180 3773:1143 3727:Mark 3689:and 3603:vs. 3595:vs. 3302:RCSB 2821:The 2765:NPOV 2689:were 2660:were 2547:--- 2527:john 2487:john 2399:john 2239:and 2187:see: 2090:Maps 2083:TALK 2058:john 2049:TALK 2008:john 1984:Maps 1738:and 1595:john 1566:john 1481:many 1469:many 1459:john 1253:--- 1200:site 1196:maps 1117:Adam 1083:Adam 998:M123 606:real 576:. — 442:Arab 330:fair 320:ISBN 311:and 6833:or 6219:not 6211:... 6201:... 5608:Erm 5231:. 5201:Biz 5181:did 5024:In 4522:at 4506:Biz 4116:by 3559:or 3374:Biz 3267:Biz 3249:Biz 3186:Biz 3162:it. 2964:?-- 2898:Biz 2874:Biz 2693:and 2664:and 2499:not 2468:did 2422:not 2334:) 2276:as 2261:-- 2147:-- 1734:To 1304:in. 1278:". 1204:Biz 1185:Biz 1178:Map 1172:Biz 1109:not 1094:or 1069:. — 963:not 918:JHK 780:Biz 644:not 602:POV 598:not 280:not 258:not 6710:-- 6515:? 5955:". 5622:. 5338:. 5168:) 5162:(/ 5137:) 5131:(/ 5049:-- 5001:is 4289:, 4285:, 4232:, 4228:, 4199:-- 3583:, 3579:, 3575:, 3571:, 3022:. 2833:. 2475:. 2107:—— 2098:? 2080:| 2046:| 1590:is 1017:, 989:? 898:-- 701:. 687:-- 307:, 76:→ 6806:" 6801:" 6186:. 6035:" 6016:" 5972:. 3775:- 3368:* 3210:" 3205:" 2530:k 2490:k 2402:k 2194:] 2061:k 2011:k 1860:. 1598:k 1569:k 1462:k 1136:— 497:— 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index