Featured articleByzantine Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 26, 2001Brilliant proseNominated
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
July 29, 2007Featured article reviewKept
June 27, 2012Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 29, 2013, May 29, 2016, May 29, 2017, May 29, 2018, May 29, 2019, and May 29, 2022.
Current status: Featured article


Byzantine Map replacement

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

As far as I can see, your proposed map is sourced to other images on WP, which is an immediate concern because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The first one I clicked on purported to depict the Exarchate of Africa in 600; can you please explain how, even it is completely reliable, it functions as a source for the Empire's boundaries 45 years earlier? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Exarchate of Africa and the Praetorian Prefecture of Africa share the same boundaries, some sources claim that Heraclius expanded the exarchate. However, these sources are few so I chose to depict the boundaries without those conquests, matching the ones 45 years earlier. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the sources, if you want i can share you the exact ones, i only used the ones present on wikipedia directly for convenience Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you have access to academic sources, but for some reason you decided to use other images as sources instead, and make your own judgements on what happened over time? Please do share these sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its because those images use the same academic sources I used? also, the mauretania region is quite obscure, so I doubt a definitive claim can be made. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to correct myself regarding the African boundary; what I meant to reference was the war with the Kingdom of Altava in 579, not an expansion by Heraclius. By then, the borders remained unchanged. After the war, there are three main theories: total annexation, partial annexation, or no border changes at all.
References:
Denys Pringle: The Defence of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab Conquest, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford 1981 (reprint 2001), ISBN 0-86054-119-3, p. 41, referencing 578, and Susan Raven: Rome in Africa, 3rd edition, Routledge, London, ISBN 0-415-08150-5, p. 220, referencing 579.
Averil Cameron: Vandal and Byzantine Africa. In: Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby (eds.): The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 14: Late Antiquity. Empire and Successors. AD 425–600, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000, ISBN 0-521-32591-9, p. 561.
I decided to depict the border as unchanged due to the lack of forts and general sources on Byzantine expansion in the vicinity of Altava. Apologies for the error, i will patiently await your reply. Shuaaa2 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how Pringle supports the border, and the only map I see in Cameron depicts the border as much less intricate. Does Raven support the carve-outs for Capsa and Dorsale? I would have thought they would have been conquered in the Vandalic War. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you misunderstand me, the references i used specifically for the war with altava, for capsa and dorsale i utilized this Christian Curtois' "Les Vandales et l'Afrique/"Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa" by A.H. Merrills. Originally it is from Christian Curtois' Shuaaa2 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page number? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
page 334 - 335 for Les Vandales et l'Afrique, if you want i can send you the pdf file link, the 2 pages explain the general political situation and shows a map of the boundaries of each Berber Kingdom, since its in french here's a translation
THE BERBER KINGDOMS IN THE 5TH AND 6TH CENTURIES
Map: 1. Kingdom of Altava (Lamoricière); 2. Kingdom of Ouarsenis; 3. Kingdom of Hodna; 4. Kingdom of Aurès; 5. Kingdom of Nememcha; 6. Kingdom of Capsa; 7. Kingdom of Dara; 8. Kingdom of Chenini.
From an inscription in Altava (Lamoricière), which has already been discussed several times and which informs us that in the year 574 it still recognized the authority of a king called Masuna, who bore the titles of Mauretanian and Romanorum, it can be inferred that the authority of this king extended over Altava, Safar, and Castra Severiana. These last agglomerations escape us, to the point that identifying them is quite difficult; one might suppose that Castra Severiana was on the outskirts of this region. But Altava, as known by Procopius, is located near the Roman frontier, 25 kilometers from the sea, near Tlemcen.
There is no difficulty in locating the kingdom of Masuna, and the inscription from Altava (Aïn Ternouch) mentions his prefect Solaym, who could be the leader of a district that extended up to the sea. One might assume that a kind of Roman prefecture formed around Altava and could be explained as a military protection area in the north against the south. Consequently, it is quite probable that the dominance of this kingdom must have extended over the steppes of the High Plains. But this is pure supposition, as we cannot find traces beyond the foothills of the Aurès. We must conclude that the subordination to the Byzantines extended no further than the Aurès.
If we look at this general assumption, it is for the reason cited by Procopius, who made this same observation about Maurus (Maur), son of the Masuna of Altava, and who claims that Maurus, son of a certain Mephanius, played a decisive role in 508. As a consequence, Mephanius seems to have replaced the previous king at that time. Procopius says that Mephanius, by means of slavery to the Byzantines, tried to stay in the leadership position for a long time, which suggests that Masuna, his predecessor, may have had resentment that fueled his hatred of the Romans. The two other regions, whose borders are hard to fix exactly, show a considerable power contrast. Masuna’s power was indisputable, and we must grant his kingdom considerable influence that extended over the steppe.
On the other hand, twenty-eight years separate the inscriptions of Procopius from those of Altava. It is necessary to admit that we should take the life of Mephanius into account, as he replaced Masuna before the year 508. However, we should not exaggerate the coincidence of events related to the Aurès, as the inscriptions suggest. It is clear from these facts that in Altava, Mephanius had long managed to be the leader of Byzantine affairs, and thus it is even more likely that the kingdom of Masuna must have extended over the same boundaries in this earlier period.
FORGOTTEN AFRICA
"It is indeed a great misfortune for a country to be poorly supported when empires are no longer stable," wrote R. de Blanche, and this misfortune is even greater than the Hypothèse would allow us to imagine. Let us not forget that, thanks to the Holy War, and after several centuries of Arab invasions, the entire region of the High Plains, once very fertile, was entirely devastated. Evidence shows that the destruction of the Castellum Altaua by the sedentary populations was highly probable, making it almost certain that this Berber kingdom extended along the borders of the steppe.
Another point, twenty-eight years separate the information given by Procopius from that of Altava’s inscription. In 508, Masuna is explicitly mentioned in the inscription. However, it must be acknowledged that he was the son of a certain Mephanius, who had replaced him during this period, and as mentioned in SOS, it appears that Mephanius replaced Masuna externally but belonged to the same family as Diodore. As a result, Masuna retained control over the region for a significant period. Moreover, we must consider that Masuna left his deep-seated resentment towards Rome in memory of its harmful rule, which indicates his hatred for Rome, an entirely understandable feeling considering the mental cruelty he had suffered. Thus, to ascribe a significant degree of power to the kingdom of Masuna is simply undeniable.
Apologies if i responded late, when we were discussing it was late at night Shuaaa2 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just in case, the borders shown here are the exact ones as shown in the book: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_depicting_the_Romano-Berber_Kingdoms.png Shuaaa2 (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading what you're quoting? Both of these excerpts are about Masuna, not Dorsale and/or Capsa.
Dorsale's existence is dubious, as mentioned in Encyclopédie berbère, Volume 5:
Quant au «royaume de la Dorsale», il est difficile de croire à son existence. En fait, les Byzantins, et vraisemblablement avant eux les Vandales, traitaient les chefs berbères comme l'empereur romain avait traité les chefs germains, en foederati, établis dans l'Empire. Ce n'est qu'en Maurétanie, province abandonnée à son destin depuis un siècle, qu'un véritable royaume put se constituer et durer jusqu'à la conquête arabe. (pg 707)
That "véritable royaume" being mentioned in the quote above is Masuna, which was never the subject. Antalas, the ""king"" of Dorsale had been a subject of the Byzantines since the start of the Vandalic War, but later rebelled in 543 AD after the killing of many chiefs by the "dux" of Tripolitania, Sergius. The details are more fleshed out on pg 99 of Mattingly's The Laguatan: A Libyan Tribal Confederation in the Late Roman Empire from Cambridge's Libyan Studies, Volume 14. The rebellion was defeated in 548 AD & the situation reverted back to the status quo (ie, Byzantine subjugation).
As far as Capsa is concerned, the city itself was, for a time, the capital of the renewed province of Byzacena. Even more so, the name of the city was renamed to "Capsa-Justiniana" in 540 AD. Whether or not the Berbers held some outlying areas is questionable & frankly not worth investigating considering the geopolitical capital of the area is very clearly under the Byzantines.
It goes without saying that neither of these polities should make an appearance on the map, considering the intention is to show the apex of the Byzantine Empire. OxSpace (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, i also have recently read other sources on the area that showed that the Byzantines did control the area, so i apologize for the mistake. Shuaaa2 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, i updated the source tab in my byzantine empire map, take a look and tell me if you feel its satisfactory https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_-_AD_555.png Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I don't think we need the prefectures on the map—they just provide detail of the divisions for a tiny fraction of the empire's history. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well i could remove them but i do believe they were a major part of the Byzantine Empire's administration and thus should be shown, but tell me and i'll remove them, perhaps i could divide it into 2 maps, one of the main infobox and one showing the administrative divisions for below the article Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were a major part of the administration yes ... but not for very long. Obviously, Italy was reconquered in around a dozen years, but Africa and the Orient largely fell in a century, and Illyricum was reorganised with the rest of the themes.
Honestly, I'm not even sure why a map of Justinian's empire is appropriate for the lead. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, it should be "representative" of the article subject, and Justinian's territories are about as unrepresentative as you can get. Far more appropriate would be a map from between the 800s and 1000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a reason to show t justinian's conquests, similar to how the Roman Empire article displayed its greatest extent in 117. one approach I could take is to use the same purple color for the pre-conquest territory and a lighter shade for the later conquests, along with labels indicating the dates of annexation
tell me what do you think about this Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also apologies for the sloppy writing, I am quite tired Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i made another map this time more simplified, could this fit on the article?: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_-_AD_395_to_568.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D Shuaaa2 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this. That said, I’d love to see it for a longer time period, either showing when territory was lost or as additional maps when territory was regained like in the subsequent conquest period of the Macedonian dynasty.
It was a very different world in the middle period with competing states so that’s another way it could be represented in a different map. A third thought is to show all territory it controlled but by time period (ie, you put a date range for different shaded regions). Biz (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is hard to do but ill try in the upcoming days Shuaaa2 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the only issue its hard showing both expansion and shrinkage so idk really how i could show them both, if you or anyone has any tips id be greatful Shuaaa2 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a hard request, we appreciate you exploring this.
Another approach to consider and that would simplify is to use three periods and therefore three shades of maximum territorial extent. The darker the shade, the longer the territory was held across the three periods.
They could be Early (330–717). Middle (717–1204) and Late (1204–1453). So your existing work would simply be one shade as 'early', the Macedonian reconquest up to 1015 when it was was at its peak would be the shade for Middle.
The late period is a bit more complicated due to all the rump states, but the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261 and sometime by 1282 with the reconquests of Michael VIII Palaiologos would probably be the maximum extent in the late era. Biz (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright, thank you for your advice, i'll see to it in the upcoming days to make the map Shuaaa2 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive been working on the map but ive been quite busy recently so i expect it to be finished in a week or so Shuaaa2 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_395_to_1262.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D
Finished, do tell if it satisfactory for the article. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on this, it's excellent. Reflecting on it, the four-tone of a similar colour make it hard to interpret without really looking a this for a while which is not great. I've not validated your research in the above mentioned sources, but I assume you are correct as it looks roughly correct but makes me uneasy without someone else confirming.
Given your original intention was to show the Empire in its maximal extent, and given our narrative of this history discusses three periods of conquest and expansion that occurred in the early, middle and late eras, I think it's best to have only three distinctive colours to reflect the three periods and when the territory was at its maximum extent in each period. Doing this also makes a complete map of the Empire's existence.
I like how you demarcate when borders and territory were acquired, lost, or changed. But it needs consistency. Either only use the dates it was acquired, or put the dates it was held (ie, a range), or only the dates it was permanently lost. It's confusing using more than one, even though you label some of them (ie, when lost) Biz (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for WP MOS:ACCESSIBILITY takes a higher priority than just good looks, so a more distinct colour scheme and a larger key would be an improvement. Otherwise, really nice job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've compared the map to Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire and there are differences. We want multiple sources but at minimum it should match this book as it's the most recent scholarship.
Page xixv: 390s. this seems to align to your map and best for origin borders. All historians rely on the Notitia Dignitatum for this period so as long as we match this we are good.
Page xv: 565. This is the best map to align to for the early period, as Kaldellis says on p.296 the government was at its peak in the decade before 572. Slight differences to what you have.
Page xix: 1054. This is the best map to align to for middle period as it also times with the end of the Macedonian dynasty and before the loss of territory.
page xxiii: 1282. This map is the best one to align to for the late period as it's the end of the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos, who expanded and lost no territory during his reign, and which unraveled after. Slight differences to what you have.
Also with the borders, only if this is not too noisy, but try to unify them as contiguous like how Kaldellis did, as the navy was a big part of the East so it's fair to say the state had a presence in the water up until the navy's disbandment in 1284. Given you are shading the map for maximal territory, you could have just the one border which is the origin one in 395 of the East or both East/West (which will contrast nicely with extension made in 565; if you only do the East origin borders, you don't need to do as many sea borders) or you could use the border from 565 to show the maximal extent in its entire history (but this is also redundant as the shading shows this as well). Trying to do multiple periods of borders can get confusing, so one border but different shades achieve the same purpose. In summary, my recommendation overall is an origin border of the overall Roman Empire distinguishing east and west boundaries, three distinctive shades for peak labelled as Early (330-717), Middle (717-1204) and Late (1204-1453). I do like how you use years territory lost due to the Arab invasions but then you need extend this to all areas, so maybe try the above first and then we can see if it makes sense. Biz (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you. Shuaaa2 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shuaaa2 do you have an update? Biz (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately i've been very busy, i'll get to work on it probably after the Holidays, apologies. Shuaaa2 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi do you have an updated timeline? Biz (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

This section needs review but before getting deep into the scholarship, I'd like to get some consensus on what it should be as its going to need a rewrite. The main article Legacy of the Roman Empire has good intent but it is not a high quality article nor is it all encompassing of the content currently there. I don't have any strong thoughts, but to structure this discussion, this is how I'm thinking of it:

I believe this section should be the following:

  • Discuss rump states (needs an investigation into the historiography, per above discussion) and successor states (Ottoman, Rus primarily)
  • Discuss impact on Europe: Cyrillic, Orthodoxy, transmission of ancient knowledge, law codes, buffer state to Europe

I believe we should remove

  • history events and narrative

What I'm not sure about

  • discussion about absolustism and scholarship changes.

Thoughts? Biz (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you're thinking about taking this on! I agree about eliminating narrative. I think the scholarly trends and ideas about absolutism / "byzantine" complexity etc, are part of the legacy and wouldn't like to see them gone completely.
What about the impact on the Middle East and the Caucasus? Transmission of ancient knowledge is equally important in that direction.
Something on modern nationalist legacies in Greece, Turkey and elsewhere seems worthwhile, but perhaps that folds into your first heading. Furius (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

empire to Empire

User:Biz changed empire to Empire with this edit [1]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "e" correct and "E" incorrect in this case? Masterhatch (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question: we discussed it here Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 16#Standardisation in the article. Its been inconsistently applied and needs addressing. Biz (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. Masterhatch (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a fresh look at the article, and used it in a more discretionary fashion -- when a common noun versus referring to the proper noun. Would welcome someone else checking this. Biz (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025

There is a missing space after the first sentence of the second paragraph: "In the earlier Pax Romana period, the western Roman Empire became more increasingly Latinised, while the eastern parts largely retained their Hellenistic culture." Inconstevable (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article status

The article's review this past 14 months is now almost complete from my perspective. We are doing a prose review now, and next week we can potentially put the article to vote if it will retain its Feature Article status. If anyone wants to check the article to identify any deficiencies, this would be the time. We have got the word count to 10,239 -- this is despite a heavy expansion in coverage -- so not sure if I have much appetite to expand it further or read more scholarship, but will take on any feedback! Biz (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to provide substantial comments because I'm on holiday, but in addition to the finishing off on "History" (on me), I'm not convinced by the coverage and prose of many sections, especially Government, Military, and Society. I'm with John below; if we were to !vote now, mine would not be to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the last two centuries of History has not had the same standard of review. However, its sourced and has enough coverage. More to my point, more people can now participate and fresh eyes will improve the prose. We don't have to have a vote now, but the focus can change now. If people want to give specific points of feedback like how John has, I can try to address. Enjoy your holiday, it's well deserved! Biz (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at small parts of the article and I'm seeing issues in those parts. Potential WP:CLOP in Byzantine_Empire#Cultural_aftermath:

source: Mango (2008) various peoples of the steppe (Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Turks)
article: and various Steppe peoples (Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Turks) Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good pick up. Facts are not CLOP, but the order of them is creative expression. Steppe people is the only term to call these people, and they are listed in order of their arrival. But we can use the extended term and list them alphabetical. ..."and diverse nomadic groups from the Eurasian Steppe, including the Avars, Bulgars, Cumans, Huns, Pechenegs, and Turks." Would that work?
If you find other instances, please point them out this is a very important issue to correct thank you. Biz (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any paraphrasing like the one you suggested would work. You could condense a bit further if you want to improve the word count: and peoples from the Eurasian Steppe such as .... But it is up to you.
The reason I pointed it out here instead of fixing it myself is that the article might not be as ready as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to address it, I appreciate you identifying it and thank you.
The only way to find out if it's ready is to get more eyes on it. The only way to ensure this is a strong FA is to have multiple editors vouching for it. I'm happy to make changes to issues people find. The alternative is the article stops being worked on. If the article has so many fundamental issues, then we should be delisting it. While I'm not going to claim it's perfect, I think it's a significant improvement and all these issues are easy to rectify if people can be collaborative and keep the feedback positive. Biz (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Governance section

  • "The patriarch inaugurated emperors from 457 onwards, while the crowds of Constantinople proclaimed their support, thus legitimising their rule." Uh, no. Half the Byzantine emperors came to power through being at the head of an army. Kaldellis p. 222 and Nicol p. 63 say as much. (Kaldellis p. 35 is also irrelevant, I don't know why it's cited. Even p.189 is about legitimising ongoing rule, not during coronations.)
  • "The senate originally had its own identity but later became a ceremonial extension of the emperor's court" what does it mean "originally"? Kaldellis is clear that it was "an extension of the court" (perilously close to WP:CLOP) in Diocletian's time.
  • "The reign of Phocas (r. 602–610) was the first military coup after the third century, and he was one of 43 emperors violently removed from power. From Heraclius' accession in 610 till 1453, a total of nine dynasties ruled the empire. During this time, for only 30 of the 843 years were the reigning emperors unrelated by blood or kinship, largely due to the practice of co-emperorship." what does any of this have to do with "Governance"?
  • "Diocletian and Constantine's reforms reorganised the empire into Praetorian prefectures" from what? how does the general reader know what this means or what the consequences were?
  • "From the 7th century, these prefectures were reorganised into provinces and later divided into districts called themata, governed by military commanders known as strategos, who oversaw both civil and military matters." not entirely certain why any source other than Louth is cited, because this closely paraphrases him: " divided into districts called themes (thema, themata), which were governed by a military commander called a strategos (general) who was responsible for both the civil and military administration"
  • "Before this change, cities were self-governing communities represented by central government and church officials, while emperors focused on defence and foreign relations." Neither Browning nor Kaldellis cover what emperors focused on. Furthermore, neither explicitly links what they are talking about to "this change"—WP:SYNTH.
  • "Constant wars and raids by Arab forces drastically changed this. City councils declined, as did the local elites who supported them." Why is this here? We've gone from talking abut what happened in the 7th century, to what happened before, than what happened in the 7th century again.
  • "Through his legal reforms, Leo VI (r. 886–912) centralised power, formally ending city councils' rights and the legislative authority of the senate." all the sources are clear that the power was already centralised, that the authority of the councils and senate were by then "vestigial", to quote Browning, and that this was merely a formal declaration, not the "legal reformation" the article presents it as. Why do we not talk about the actual decisions he took (which we conveniently have a couple of maps displaying right next to the text)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coronations vary a bit. Leo was the first to introduce the diademing by the patriarch in his coronation in 457 but it was not considered to be an essential for the ceremony: he was already hailed as Augustus following the torc coronation by the army and only afterwards, the patriarch became involved. The army is the important one here. From Anastasius' coronation onwards, however, the acclamation as Augustus occurred after the placement of diadem by the patriarch. (Boak 1919, p. 45) When the senior emperor is available, it's the emperor, rather than the patriarch, that crowns the successor. I'm not familiar on this topic for the later periods, but you follow this article, there is some debate on the role of the patriarch. That being said, I'm not sure how coronation is relevant for the "Governance" section, as do the military coups, as you pointed out. Soidling (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems no one else has thought seriously about the sectioning and the relative weight placed on them; the "Governance" section is less than half the length of the (albeit duplication-riddled) "Diplomacy" section. I continue to think that the current organisation of the article (i.e. thematic before chronological, rather than vice versa) hinders its presentation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) You are correct, here is a replacement sentence: New dynasty's of Emperors usually came to power through the military, with their ongoing rule legitimatised by the support of Constantinople’s crowds. Does that work?
    No, because it has nothing to do with "Governance"; if there is a need to create a new subsection on the emperor, that needs to be done, not messing about with this half-relations.
    The original paragraph I wrote had a very different message before. It was describing the power structures. I've included it below:
    The emperor was the centre of the whole administration of the Empire, who the legal historian Kaius Tuori has said was "above the law, within the law, and the law itself"; with a power that is difficult to define and which does not align with our modern understanding of the separation of powers. The proclamations of the crowds of Constantinople, and the inaugurations of the patriarch from 457, would legitimise the rule of an emperor. The senate had its own identity but would become an extension of the emperor's court, becoming largely ceremonial.
    You removed the first sentence months ago because you said sources discussing the Roman Emperor are original research. I'm not arguing with that because this goes to the fundamental bias of this topic where this is considered a different empire. Which is to say, this needs to be addressed in other articles as I'm in sync with the scholarship and it's very clear the direction it's going. The scholarship just needs to be exposed for all to see. But ignoring that, and the issues with the other sentences, you can see how what I was trying to do was describe (1) The emperors power was everything (2) They had their power from the crowds (as well as the church, we can say military as well) (3) The original institutions, notably the Senate, behind the empire became appendages of the court. This is what is needed to be covered in governance if we were to cut it down to one paragraph. Of note, there is no main article on this topic so the content here needs to stand on it's own. Maybe if we can agree what this section should cover, then we can write it to the standards it deserves.
    (2) I was trying to stay close to source language, combing them, but I agree it’s too close and could be CLOP. “Originally" is in reference to Kaldellis saying it "retained a “sense of identity” and which all three sources says eventually disappears into the ceremonial/loss of power. Replacement sentence: “The senate had its own identity but was really just a ceremonial body within the imperial court"
    The empire had dozens of ceremonial bodies, so why is saying one had its own identity but actually didn't illustrative.?
    The Senate is the fundamental power institution of governance since the time of the Roman Republic. The Emperor became the new institution, but the Senate still had a role. Arguable the consulship as well before it was abolished. Their evolution as instititions is at the core of governance. The other ceremonial bodies do not matter as these are the ones that had power.
    (3) This was originally in the article. It talks about how the emperor would come to power, which is ironic as you questioned (1) as not being this. While this would probably be better placed at the start of the paragraph, Nicol only counts it from Heraclius. To do this otherwise would be original research, which is why it's here. The power of the emperor is very important for governance — and how new emperors get appointed/removed is a big part of this. But if the consensus this is not important, sure we can cut.
    Yes, I question both (1) and (3) as not being relevant to the section. Again, if you want to create a separate section to talk about emperors, their duties, how they came to power, etc. As I said above, you need to think seriously about the sectioning—the article must comply with MOS:LAYOUT and have prose of a professional standard.
    We had said we needed to complete the scholarship review before we decided if we restructure the article. You completed History yesterday which officially means this is now an option. In the absence of a formal proposal -- so far we have two informal suggestions, (1) split the article into the three main historical periods, history master narrates and we split the sections under it (2) Remove History and summarise it down, which reduces the word count significantly. I believe that's the discussion that's needed before we continue to debate if the role and function of emperor is relevant for a section on governance.
    (4) Noted. Though this is what the sources say, would need to find another source about what came before. Also in this sentence "separated the army from the civil administration" is a big point. Before that, Diocletion created many more provinces and the Roman diocese as a layer above that, with Constantine creating Praetorian prefectures above that. So the statement is valid, maybe we can say "Diocletian and Constantine's reforms reorganised the empires' provinces into over-arching Dioceses and then, Praetorian prefectures".
    Again, the problem is not the level of detail, but that the general reader would not understand the consequences—you cannot just say "dioceses and prefectures" and expect people who have no knowledge about the empire to nod in understanding.
    Got it. So would links to those articles suffice? Or are you saying, there needs to be a bigger discussion about the evolution of district power structure from the Tetarchy's Roman diocese to heavily debated Theme (Byzantine district)?
    (5) You are correct, I reviewed my notes and see how I did mistakly did this. How about this as a replacement: “After the 7th century, the prefectures were abandoned and after the 9th century the provinces were divided into themata, governed soley by a military commander”
    Bear in mind that WP:CLOP, if found on multiple occasions, normally torpedoes an FAC on the spot. The replacement text is better, but needs a run-through a grammar checker and could use a teeny bit more detail on themata.
    Thank you. Yes, this is why I want more eyes on this article. I'm burnout working on it as it's never ending, but to continue on it, if people have specific issues, I will address. CLOP matters a lot and I'm embarrassed I let this happen.
    (6), (7), and (8) I disagree, Browning supports this. And the copy editing has changed my original text to the detriment. Sources below
    • p185 Kaldellis 2023: "Cities now had three masters-in-residence: their councils, the local representatives of the central government, and their bishops, who mostly came from the curial class but had a different agenda."
    • p.98 Browning 1992: Can't access the source now, but my notes/quotes on this page as follows. clean up of laws by Leo due to anomalies or anachronisms.independent rights of city councils and legislature authority of the senate was abrogated on the grounds power is now vested in the emperor. Marks the formal abolition and culmination of a process of centralisation accelerated by the empires fight for survival. the roman empire in its heyday has been a collection of civic and self governing communities with the monarchy superimposed for defence and foreign relations. the byzantine empire in its fully developed form had only one centre of power
    My original text: In earlier times, cities had been a collection of self-governing communities with central government and church representatives, whereas the emperor focused on defense and foreign relations. The Arab destruction primarily changed this due to constant war and their regular raids, with a decline in city councils and the local elites that supported them. Robert Browning states that due to the Empire's fight for survival, it developed into one centre of power, with Leo VI (r. 886–912) during his legal reforms formally ending the rights of city councils and the legislative authority of the senate.
    The key idea, of this original paragraph I wrote above, was the the Arab invasions shook the Empire, which resulted in centralised power for survival. As Browning says, the Byzantine Empire in its fully developed form had only one centre of power. We certainly can expand on the Themata but they are coveted in military again, but I thought that the reader can click on the links to find out more. As I was a reviewing this existing content, and we are writing what the sources say, Browning is making the point about centralisation. So if we revert back to what I originally wrote, I believe this is better. But open to an alternative and expansion of other topics if you still think so. Biz (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say Browning supports something if you don't have access to him? He only talks about what "the Roman Empire in its heyday" was like, and says that the process of centralization had begun before the struggle for survival. Your original text, and the idea behind it, was better, but the vague "in earlier times" when Browning actually refers to the height of classical Rome is misleading. There is also no discussion in the sources (as there neither should be in the article) about local elites. There is absolutely no need to even mention Leo VI to describe events that happened two centuries earlier; other sources are perfectly happy to discuss who did what at that time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to have access: the lawsuit with the Internet Archive has restricted access. I keep buying books just for this article to get access, and I don't feel the need to do this now. I thought adding Leo's removal of the formal legislative power of the senate ties to the first paragraph of the transition in power in the senate, but sure we can combine that with the rewritten text above. "the Roman Empire in its heyday" is not classical Rome, but Pax Romana, which is relevant to governance of this "empire". I thought local elites, mentioned by Kaldellis, was relevant as they was a form of governance (ie, at the city level) and Browning says this stopped due to Arab wars with Kaldellis saying towns became castles "Kastra" as reflected in their names. Anyway, to take action your feedback: restore the original paragraph, clarify earlier times, remove references to what Leo did, remove local elites?

February 2025 comments

I'll post this here rather than at the very long FAR page.

I've read the entire article in detail, but have not looked at sourcing, just prose and overall structure. Here are (mostly) my edits so far.

Some remaining questions:

  1. Empire or empire? I see where this was discussed above. I think it does not much matter which standard we adopt, but I think the article should be internally consistent. I've standardised on the lower-case variant, although I may have missed some, except of course in phrases like "Byzantine Empire" and "Roman Empire" which need to be capitalised. A more serious issue is that the article refers to the empire in various ways; "the East" is one. I realise this is because of the slightly fuzzy nature of its origin but I feel this could be improved for easier understanding.
  2. Coverage; as naturally occurs on a long article on a complex subject, there are substantial overlaps in coverage. For example, the Codex Theodosianus is covered in the main History section and then again under Law. There is nothing wrong with this, but ideally topics should be mentioned once then explained in more detail later.
  3. Wording; I've worked hard to clarify and standardise wording. More remains to be done to meet FA standards. For example, what do these phrases mean?
    1. the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), due to having a contested legacy to Roman identity and to associate negative connotations from ancient Latin literature
    2. Justinian I capitalised political instability in Italy to attempt the reconquest of lost western territories.
    3. By the 11th century, the Empire adopted a principle of diplomatic equality, leveraging the emperor's personal presence to negotiate
    4. The dromon was the most advanced galley on the Mediterranean, until the 10th-century development of the galeai, which superseded dromons after the development of a late 11th century Western (Southern Italian) variant
    5. From 294 the enslavement of children was forbidden, but not completely;
    6. Women's rights were not better in comparable societies, Western Europe or America until the 19th century
    7. A tradition that key people progressed over the periods underpinned this scholarship, especially in the realms of philosophy, geometry, astronomy, and grammar

I am able to work on this some more in the next days. I feel that, although it has made amazing progress, the article is not quite ready to go to a vote. If someone familiar with the sources could clarify the seven examples I have highlighted, that would be a great start to taking it the rest of the way. (I am aware, by the way, that some of the wordings (No 5) are ones edited by me; I'd still like to clarify their intended meaning.) John (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John, this is helpful feedback.
(1) Empire or Empire. The approach I took was to use Empire when other empires are mentioned in a sentence. This helps clarify that the subject of the sentence refers specifically to the Byzantine Empire, particularly when discussing one of the Muslim empires. I understand this makes things more complex, but it's the same approach as referring to the Byzantine Empire—just without the adjective and full name. It also reduces the need to say the adjective Byzantine -- which has turned into a noun -- and which is wrong
(2) Coverage. Yes, we had discussed restructuring the article due to this issue, but we needed to wait until the scholarship review was completed this month. The proposal was to split it as historical periods, so in effect, each sections is covered in one of the three main historical periods. However, there is not enough scholarship to support this, so the alternative feedback we've had is to reduce the history section. Given the scholarship, and parallel discussions happening right now, I expect this history section to get copied to other articles. That said, the best interim strategy, I believe, is to reduce or remove this section in History, keeping that narrative focused as a political account. The History section and the rest of the article were written in parallel by different contributors which is why this happened.
(3) Wording
  1. This is expansion from the source. In my words, in the 8th century, the Franks called themselves Roman Emperors, and there was economic competition between this Germanic-Romano empire and the East Roman Empire, which was regarded as Greek over the next few centuries. The source explains that the reason Greek was used as an identity by the west exclusively for people who considered themselves Roman the entire time stems from a historical dispute over who was the true successor of the ancient Romans. This is a politically charged topic, as it ties into the origins of the Catholic Church and Western Europe, which I interpret as power competition over land and people based on who was the “real” Roman empire . It unwittingly frequently leads to extensive debates on this Talk page on why are we calling it Byzantine. As a neutral observer, if you think this explanation is unhelpful, we should keep the source but remove the text.
  2. The original sentence stated: "Justinian took advantage of political instability in Italy to attempt the reconquest of lost western territories." It was changed this week with a copy editing drive. It's meant to reflect how Justinian sought to recover the lost western provinces of the Roman Empire. These territories had been lost due to the Germanic invasions, and he capitalised on the unstable situation among the warring Germanic tribes to reclaim them.
  3. When the empire was dominant in Europe, it wielded influence everywhere. However, and especially, after losing control of Western Europe, it still had significant resources and ancient status to maintain a presence. Preoccupied with fighting Muslim armies, it practiced diplomacy to maintain peace, often leading "councils of kings" to exert influence (up until the 11th century it had hoped to reclaim western Europe). From a diplomacy view, Christianity’s spread was strategic, not accidental. However, by the 11th century, as the empire diminished in size, its diplomatic strategy shifted to one of "equals" with the now much larger Western European states. This meant that the smaller empire was no longer superior but was now considered equal in status. Despite this, the empire maintained the notion of superiority as an ancient state, even as it lost territory and so it began relying more on the "superior" presence of the emperor.
  4. Dromons dominated naval warfare until the 10th century, after which a new variant called the Galeai became superior. The significance of using this term is that, centuries later, other nation-empires continued to use Galeai to refer to a standard type of boat. While the Galeai was a variant of the Dromon, it eventually became recognised as a distinct class of ship. (Anyone have a Kleenex?)
  5. The term enslavement should be used when referring to people, while slavery refers to the institution. This language choice follows best practices to avoid dehumanisation. To simplify: children were enslaved, but it was a continuous struggle, with different emperors altering policies over time. It would be inaccurate to say that changes happened all at once. Instead, we see a gradual process of freeing children born into slavery, those bought through markets, or those acquired through war. This process began during the reign of Diocletian, but it was neither complete nor permanent, despite what one of the sources made it look like.
  6. Women's rights in the empire were among the best in Europe at the time or in any comparable polity. The source states that it was not until the 19th century that women in Europe gained more rights—presumably due to suffrage.
  7. The empire had a strong tradition of scholarship, known to us due to the work of major personalities. However, this tradition persisted because knowledge was systematically taught and preserved in schools. The study of classical knowledge—its preservation, discussion, exploration, and instruction—was central to the empire's intellectual life. This was particularly true in philosophy, geometry, astronomy, and grammar.
  8. Bonus: there's another that is now confusing due to yesterday's copy edits. "Throughout the empire's history, scholars remained closely connected to pagan learning and metaphysics, with an influential presence among the Church's clergy." There are two points in this sentence and like a lot of my writing in this article, which is painful at times, I try to keep sources linked to every sentence when I would normally just split them up. One point is who despite paganism dying out, pagan thought in the sciences continued. Secondly, because most of the educated where people of the Church, you have a large presence of scholars -- that is to say, pagan scientists -- who were members of the clergy. A modern example would be Gregor Mendel, these unsung hero's of science when the church dominated intellectual life. The source made a point of this, and a previous text before I removed it, I think because it was in stark contrast to the Catholic church at the time in western Europe. I didn't want to explain it like that but that is why I think it's important to point out. It shows a more permissive intellectual life.
Biz (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and thank you for the detailed answers. Please inspect the edits I made to try to clarify meaning and see if they remain true to the sources. John (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greek fire

A minor point, but what is the source for "recently rediscovered Greek fire"? My understanding is that its origins are poorly understood. Could we say this was the first time it was used by them? John (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is debate on its origins and yes, that was the first documented use. I see you've rewritten that sentence in History now, I think that's fine. Biz (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Language section

Biz, I have multiple issues with your revision here: [2]

1. Why did you remove that native Greek speakers were a minority in early Byzantine period? This is clear in the source.

The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 779:

Thus Greek was a native language for only a minority of the Empire's inhabitants in its early years, with speakers concentrated in 'old' Greece and the major Hellenistic foundations.

We can say that Greek became the majority language as time went on and Empire's territory declined.

2. Potential misrepresentation of the sources. The sources do not say all city dwellers were majority Greek-speaking. It just mentions Hellenistic cities like Alexandria for example.

3. Coastal Anatolia had been Greek speaking since the first millennium BC is inaccurate without any qualifiers. There were languages like Lycian language, Lydian language, Carian language in that time frame. See: The Elements of Hittite p. 1

4. "and despite indigenous and immigrant groups inland, they had all hellenised by the 6th century AD". In early Byzantine period, there were still native languages in central Anatolia. The map in this source page 208 makes it clear, for c. 560. Why is this being omitted?

5. Why did you remove the geographical explanation, such as Coptic in Egypt, Aramaic in Levant etc?

There are 4 paragraphs in Language section. 3 of them are about Latin and Greek. It doesn't seem UNDUE to explain non Latin and Greek languages in a bit more detail in one paragraph, especially considering that many people in the Empire spoke other languages. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You original rewrite was a whole new paragraph and the removal of an entire one, which is not what we discussed in FAR. Further, you did not cite specific sentences only a page range on the last sentence, so I had to read those sources fully which it appears you didn't, and this is what came out. Further, Greek was the main language of the empire, Latin was the original co--main language, all other languages were on the periphery. This sections suffers from drive-by editor nationalism, so keeping other languages to not more than one paragraph is appropriate and not UNDUE.
1. I replaced that with "the educated and the majority of city- dwellers in the east continued to speak Greek, even if it was not a person's native language" which is more relevant and flows with the point about Diocletian restricting Greek. The discussion of all the native languages later then gives appropriate coverage. To say Greek became the majority language as it declined fundamentally misunderstands the role Greek had since the time of the 5th century BC in the Mediterranean. I request you read the entire section and its sources if we are to have a productive discussion on this point.
2. In Horrocks (2008) p. 778

Nonetheless, the educated classes and most city dwellers in the east had at least a working knowledge of Greek, while a minority also had some command of Latin, whether as a result of formal education, trade, travel, and relocation (both voluntary and enforced), or service in the army and imperial administration. In the country areas, by contrast, where the majority remained illiterate, many of those who had neither Greek nor Latin as a native language would have known neither, even at the most basic level.

I do not see the misrepresentation of the sources you allege. You also removed the last paragraph entirely (and all it's sources) that was there that the people who did not speak Latin or Greek were the illiterate and which the above supports. To want to expand on a discussion for non Latin and Greek language changes is not that relevant to this article.
3. In Horrocks (2010) p.210.

The coastal areas of Asia Minor had been culturally and linguistically Hellenized (and then Romanized) for nearly a millennium and a half

I'm just referencing the source you provided but reframing it to avoid CLOP. Yes, other languages were spoken in Anatolia and that's acknowledged in the other sentence but the source says this.
4. If we assume we are talking between Diocletian to Justinian, where the majority of perspective sit as the early Byzantine period, why are we talking about extinct languages spoken on the periphery during this 300 year period out of an empire that lasted for 1,123 years? The link to Anatolian languages allows a reader to find out more without wasting space in an article that is *not about that topic*.
5. I removed the geographical description to reduce word count and because it it was not needed. Syriac, Coptic, Berber, Illyrian and Thracian are all distinct languages in geographies, and they are linked to their articles, so they don't need additional verbiage.
This is an article about the Byzantine Empire. The evolution of Latin and Greek are the main topics. Acknowledging there were extinct languages is fine, but in one sentence. Acknowledging there were other languages is also fine, but not more than one paragraph. There was a previously a dedicated paragraph that attempted to do the latter but I appreciate the new scholarship you introduced. I'm not sure what value additional expansion of other languages will do to the narrative, but if you want to propose something here, I'm open. Biz (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2. Oh ok, I missed that part, sorry! Although the source says "at least a working knowledge". Not sure what you mean in the second part. As the Empires territory declined, it became more homogenous. Is this contested? The fact that Greek speakers were in the minority in early empire period gives a quick overview.
3. Yes, the source says linguistically Hellenized. It's correct there was Hellenization going on for "nearly a millennium and a half". But it's incorrect to say the coasts had been Greek-speaking in its entirety for that period. You can switch back to how I worded it or say (addition in bold):
"Coastal Anatolia had been at least partially Greek speaking since the first millennium BC.
4 and 5. Language is 4 paragraphs. You could organize it as one paragraph for: overview; early Byzantine period; middle and later period (similar to the source, Horrocks 2008); and an extra paragraph for other issues. Horrocks 2008 mentiones geographic information for example:

Syriac and other Aramaic dialects were dominant in western Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, where Syriac had also evolved as a literary and religious language during the fourth century, in line with the growing importance of regional cultures ... Similarly in Egypt, though Greek was the dominant language of Alexandria and other major Hellenistic foundations, administrative documents intended for the population as a whole were routinely published in both Greek and Egyptian. In many country areas Greek-Egyptian interaction was commonplace, and many Egyptians were employed in local administration, a situation which promoted widespread bilingualism as evidenced by the vast numbers of Greek papyri written by Egyptians.

So the limited space provided for non-Greek and non-Latin languages in this article does not seem to be in line with the sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili:, 1 and 2: I wrote "...speak Greek, even if it was not a person's native language" so that it aligns with the source text of ...at least a working knowledge. They imply the same thing. Yes, when territories were lost following the Arab conquests, I've read native Greek provinces largely remained, and homogenised. However, this point you keep insisting that Greeks were in the minority I have issue with. You are conflating ethnicity with language -- Greek was like English. Anyone educated spoke Greek. "Native Greek speakers" is making an ethnicity point that is not needed in this section.
3. Your proposed "minority" language is not supported in the sources. I would prefer we avoid making a judgement on this point. Here is an alternative: "While some coastal areas of Anatolia had been Greek-speaking since the first millennium BC, Anatolia was also home to various indigenous and immigrant groups who spoke different languages. However, by the 6th century AD, they had all undergone Hellenisation."
4 & 5 You are advocating we copy the creative expression which uses redundant language of geographies where the languages were spoken. To avoid CLOP, reduce work count: hyperlinks to the languages is enough. As for the section, we want to have the option to split this content up into the Byzantine historical periods one day -- so your change to integrate other languages earlier is an improvement, but let's also keep this direction in mind. If you accept the above, happy to make this change and we can move on the other issues. Biz (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Biz here. Every empire is by definition multi-lingual, there is no mono-linual empire. When talking about the Byzantine Empire in particular, the language of the empire is Greek, along with Latin in the early period. It is only natural that these two will be the main focus of the "Language" section. Local languages with limited, if any, influence exist (like in every empire) and, as Biz said, a short mention of them, like in the current version, already seems due. Lastly, the current version never claims that the coast of Anatolia was Greek-speaking "in its entirety". It very clearly says that there were "indiginous" and "immigrant groups". Piccco (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the article says currently:

Coastal Anatolia had been Greek speaking since the first millennium BC, and despite indigenous and immigrant groups inland, they had all hellenised by the 6th century AD.

To me it suggests that indigenous and immigrant groups were only inland, which is incorrect.
For the rest, this is literally the first sentences in Horrocks 2008 chapter: p. 777

THE Byzantine Empire, for most of its existence, was a multi-ethnic and multilingual entity. Although the Greek language enjoyed a dominant position throughout its history, there were many for whom it was at best a second language and many more, chiefly in rural areas, who probably never learned it at all.

Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I guess we could alter it, like: Coastal Anatolia was largely Greek-speaking .... Regarding the second part, this is what I also said: every empire is by definition multi-cultural/lingual. Some local languages may only have limited influence in their communities (like you mentioned: Egyptian was written along with Greek in local documents) or many others may not have any influence at all (remaining only spoken languages and later dying out). As Biz said, more focus on these languages is WP:UNDUE and pointless for this article (that's why we have: Languages of the Roman Empire). For example, the Ottoman Empire was also multilingual, but several widely-spoken Balkan languages are not mentioned in the respective language section. Piccco (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't largely Greek-speaking since the first millennium BC. "since the first millennium BC" is the issue here.
For the second part, see: WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:NOTFORUM.
If Ottoman Empire article ever goes through a FAC or FAR, you can mention those concerns. Bogazicili (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then we could just say from antiquity or something like that, which doesn't put a specific time limit. As I said, we have this article for a reason, which is to inform the reader on the local languages of the Empire. Further exapansion on local/non-influential languages in this section just seems WP:UNDUE and pointless. Examples of local languages as well as the diversity and multilingualism of the Empire are unambiguously mentioned already. Piccco (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piccco: Can you provide sources to show UNDUE? I explained my logic above.
Further sources and quotes were also provided in FAR. See: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Byzantine_Empire/archive3#Arbitrary_break
Do you have a source that says when exactly coasts of Anatolia were "largely Greek-speaking"?
This was the version I had added by the way: see the second paragraph in Language section. I don't think it is UNDUE. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think I have a particular issue with your proposed version of the second paragraph either, my only issue being that Greek speakers are unnecessarily referred to as a "minority", when there was no other majority language anyway, and it might also be a little confusing because, even if Greek was not yet majority (in numbers), it was still, compared to others, the dominant language in the east, per the first paragraph. They were just concentrated in the traditional Greek and Hellenistic areas. Your version also seems to mention Armenian and Slavonic, perhaps two of the most important minority languages in the empire.
To be honest, I believe there might be some more issues with this section, such as the fact that it gives perhaps undue weight on the early or even pre-byzantine periods, while the middle to late periods appear to be excluded. Piccco (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the early Byzantine period, they were a minority, it's obvious from the map of the Empire. For example: [3]
You can say they became a majority in later period.
Language section is all over the place.
For example, we have Kaldellis 2023, p. 289 in third paragraph as a source. Biz, why are you prioritizing The Sleepless Emperor (527–540) chapter from Kaldellis 2023 when we have a dedicated language chapter in Horrocks (2008)??? Bogazicili (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't necessarily disagree, but I still though it was unnecessary. At this point, every language is a minority to some degree. No other language has a clear majority or dominace; but Greek is still the most influential in the east. Saying that its speakers were concentrated in the Greek and Hellenistic areas would've been due and clear already. Piccco (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this talk and no-one's considered the most significant issue in that section by far—that there is far too much detail on the languages of the early empire, and startlingly, absolutely nothing on the latter half of the empire's existence. I don't know why we use Rochette 2011, 2018, and 2023 so extensively when their works explicitly concern the Roman Empire and are thus completely biased in the wrong direction. Similarly, only the first four pages of Horrocks 2010 chapter are cited—the ones with the subheading "...Early Byzantine Period". The content under "Greek in the Later Empire" subheading is almost twice as long and this article uses none of it. Absolutely bizarre. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Picco raised it. I also simplified this section recently (and moved it to Languages of the Roman Empire, but had to add it back due to the lede to support the following statement: "During the early centuries of the Roman Empire, the western provinces were Latinised, but the eastern parts kept their Hellenistic culture."
Further, how Greek and Latin evolved is a very important theme that distinguishes the Byzantine Empire. Understanding the historical context gives a much more rounded view. As for latter half of the expires existence, you removed the Runciman source which discussed Latin coming back to Constantinople in the 10th century. And yes, the scholarship does not talk much about language. If you can find something, that would be lovely, because I struggled. I've just read Horrocks (2010) and there's maybe one sentence about how Greek got regionalised with vernacular appearing over time. The current text by Nikolaos Oikonomides is the more interesting thing, either way there is not much that's interesting to cover the mid and late era. Biz (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is simply unacceptable levels of WP:OR. You have decided what the "interesting" parts of WP:RS (i.e. not 92-year-old-sources) are and cite various unrelated sources in order to push a POV though WP:UNDUE weighting. Of course the scholarship talks about language. You have just decided that what it talks about is unimportant compared to your chosen "rounded view". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to interpret your forceful critique: my chosen rounded view is talking about Greek dialect evolution in the regions is only worth one sentence based on this source?
My statement that there is not much scholarship on the mid to late era -- an issue with almost every section outside of the big banner topics -- is WP:UNDUE?
The WP:OR is what exactly?
My POV that is wrecking this article, is to interpret the main theme of this section as the diglossia issues, first with Latin/Greek and later spoken/literary Greek? Given the latter almost tore Greece apart until it was resolved in ~1970, we can certainly expand on it more there. I just thought the Latin/Greek diglossia was the most relevant theme for this article. I've also written in the article already, and acknowledged, 1/4 of the section should cover other languages. What other points of views are there to take into consideration?
As for Steven Runciman, one of the great historians of Byzantium, he mentioned a fact I could not replicate elsewhere which is that Latin was spoken in 10th century Constantinople. A relevant fact that I'm not sure pushes any POV other than something changed and gives the article something for the later eras. I'm willing to take your guidance on how we can make this a best in class article, but it would help if you did more reading yourself on the topic, or in the absence of this, at least discuss it in a way that motivates continued work. Biz (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29:, your observation seems correct and, as Biz correctly mentioned, I briefly pointed this out yesterday. I had noticed the issues that you brought up since last year, although I never bothered opening a discussion.
  • My concern is that a substantial part of the section is focused essentially on ancient Roman / pre-Byzantine history, and the rest only on early Byzantine history, mostly when the western empire still existed. Rochette (2023) is part of a book about the "Latinization of the Roman West", with a focus on the unified ancient Roman empire. For example, aren't the sentences Beginning in the second century BC, Latin spread, especially in the western provinces and western provinces lost competence in Greek a bit WP:OFFTOPIC? 2nd c. BC is way too early and the West is not 'Byzantine history'. I understand that an introduction on the the Greek East and Latin West may be helpful. But while we focus on that, almost anything post-Heraclius (with focus on the east and the middle ages) seems missing.
  • My second concern is the ambiguity; for example the opening There was never an official language [...] but Latin and Greek were the main languages is only correct, if we are talking about the ancient Roman or early Byzantine empire (like the given sources do), but never clarified. Another one is Aramaic dialects [...] continued to be spoken. Until when? all of these languages either died out in late antiquity or their territories were lost in the 7th century.
I agree that the Latin/Greek and Attic/Demotic Greek diglossias are certainly worth discussing; for example, two major and contemporary literary works reflect that: the Alexiad written in Attic and Digenes Akritas in vernacular; although the latter diglossia isn't currently given the same weight. Lastly, my intention with this is not to criticize anyone who was invloved in the writting of the section, but just to present some concerns, which I believe to be worth considering. Piccco (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29:, this is why I suggested restructuring the Language section. [4]
The language section is currently 4 paragraphs. We can change it to 1 paragraph for early Empire. 2 paragraphs for mid and later empire. 1 paragraph overview.
And we should prioritize chapters in overview sources such as Language chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Part 2 Byzantium From Constantine I to Mehmet the Conqueror section in Greek A History of the Language and its Speakers is also a good overview source for language in Byzantine Empire. Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly agree with all of your points @Piccco and Bogazicili:. I especially like the suggestion of basing the section off overview sources which deal with the subject as a whole and which therefore are in prime position to justify the WP:WEIGHTing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford History of Byzantium (ed. Mango) also discusses the mid-late evolution of Greek vis-à-vis the vernacular on pp. 298–299; it meanwhile skims the division between Latin and Greek in less than half a paragraph on p. 5, and essentially concludes that it did not have much effect. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @AirshipJungleman29, I agree with that approach. I also like Bogazicili's approach with the text following a chronological order, which is what I also had in mind. It seems like this section, even in its older versions was always focused predominantly in the early Byzantine period. I find it interesting, for example, how medieval Greek came to be called 'Romaic' in the late periods. Regarding the foreign languages, I think we should probably prioritize examples of languages that had some lingering influence in the empire; for example, we are currently mentioning unattested languages, like Berber, Illyrian, Thracian etc, and not languages with literary traditions, like Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Slavonic, Persian etc. I also just noticed that Biz made some changes recently, which seem to be moving to right direction, I believe. Piccco (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy

Biz, you need to restore my version or change at least this sentence immediately, as discussed above. The following is factually inaccurate: Coastal Anatolia had been Greek speaking since the first millennium BC,... Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my response above, I tagged you now. I will immediately make an edit, when we immediately come to consensus and I subsequently come to believe that we are able have civil discussions on improving the article. Biz (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to reach consensus.
But in the meanwhile, you can at least change one factually inaccurate sentence.
Coastal Anatolia was not Greek speaking in its entirety since the first millennium BC. For example, see: The Elements of Hittite p. 1 Bogazicili (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source also says that all the Anatolian languages were extinct by the first few centuries AD (and only in reference to the interior, not the coast), which you carefully omitted from the article. Why is that? Khirurg (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make sense.
I'm not contesting coastal Anatolia was Greek speaking in early Byzantine era. Read above. Bogazicili (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously responded with a new text that can resolve this if you both can take a look. Biz (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the wording in 3rd point (blue text) as an interim measure. At least it's not factually inaccurate. Bogazicili (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, did you just remove a factual statement because someone who doesn't like it falsely claimed that it's not factual? Come on. It is a common consensus in academia that coastal West Anatolia was mostly Greek speaking since the first millennium BC. How many false statements and cherry picking will you let that user do. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

@Biz, Bogazicili, and Piccco: I have rewritten the "Language" section to focus on what the high-quality reliable sources give prominence to, as per WP:WEIGHT. We now have one lengthy paragraph on Greek vs Latin vs other languages up to Justinian's rule (selected because three sources specifically mentioned it as a time-marker), one medium-length paragraph focusing on diglossia in the mid-period, and one smaller paragraph focusing on vernacular literature in the Palaiologan period. I believe that this satisfies WP:NPOV far more than the previous version; feel free to ping me for any queries. John, as you are now a regular on this talk page, would you mind turning your eagle-copyediting-eye to this section? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better and balanced. Bogazicili (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good work. John (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well expressed, covers all topics. My niggle is it's now overly reliant on one source (Horrocks). Biz (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself; there is not much detail in RS. That means we work with what we have to maintain WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29, now that it seems we finished most of the discussion on language, I thought I would ask you a few minor questions
  • Looking at the infobox, it seems that the 'common language' entry is identical to the one in the Roman Empire. Do you think that this is accurate for the topic of this article (with that order, at least), knowing that Latin would become uncommon about a millennium earlier before the empire's decline?
  • For some periods, like the Komnenian restoration and the Palaiologan era, do you think a parenthesis with the respective dates, such as (13th–15th centuries), would be helpful for the average reader to better understand the time period on which the paragraph focuses?
  • The article of Medieval Greek, essentially the main language of the Byzantine Empire, is currently not linked in the section; do you think it could be added in the current FI hatnote, like before, or become a link somewhere else in the text?
Piccco (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trade with China

Although we link to Sino-Roman relations, there is no mention of the extensive trade with China in the article. I know we aren't looking to make the article longer, but could we at least squeeze in a couple of sentences? It's interesting! John (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Can't say though I know much on the topic. Is there anything that stands out as interesting that I can take a look? Biz (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Legacy section

From the FAR discussion

There seems to be WP:NPOV issues in Byzantine_Empire#Legacy section. Positives (from a certain perspective) in the sources seem to be mentioned while negatives are omitted. For example, multiple source mention lack of scientific progress in Byzantine Empire:

  • The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 958:

    However generous the assessment, Byzantium is not credited with any advance in science, philosophy, political theory, or with having produced a great literature. ...

  • A Concise History of Byzantium, p. 130:

    By the mid-seventh century, professors had died out as a class, and with them an intellectual community that had begun in Athens in the fifth century BC. If anyone still had a serious scholarly interest in such fields as philosophy or science, he was an unusual and isolated figure. ...

  • Review article:

    During the long Byzantine period, Orthodox scholars did not develop groundbreaking new scientific ideas; in fact, “innovation” had a rather pejorative connotation in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. They mainly taught and commented on the Greek science received from the past, adopting some elements of Islamic science as well. Byzantium contributed only indirectly to the European Renaissance, transmitting precious texts and knowledge through the mediation of eminent Byzantine scholars who moved to the West ...

    Bogazicili (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if another editor wants to consider an addition based on the above quotes, to which I would not necessarily be against, but to me this looks a bit like a nothing-y statement here. In the sense that: why is the lack of something so worth mentioning in an already not too large "legacy" section? Unless we want to add some form of criticism for balance. But still the section doesn't seem to claim that the Byzantine Empire made major scientific discoveries and progress in those fields anyway. Piccco (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why omit it while including other things? This is what I said in FAR:
If you are including "preserved and transmitted classical learning ..." (among other things) from the source (Mango 2008), but excluding lack of scientific progress which is also in the source, you are being selective about what you include in the article from the source. That is why it's a WP:DUE issue.
Something short like a partial sentence such as "Although there were limited advances in science...." could be added into the article. I looked at Legacy section because it is in the Byzantium's Role in World History chapter in the source, but it can be added into Byzantine_Empire#Science_and_technology. Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, stating that "advances in science were limited" is not necessarily too bad, although opening the section like this might be a bit undue, perhaps it could be incorporated somehwere in the text, if more editors are fine with this too (?). Piccco (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section of Legacy: if we write that "Byzantium is not credited with any advance in science, philosophy, political theory, or with having produced a great literature", then how is this legacy? Their legacy in this regard is empty space. A criticism that they did not do enough does not belong in legacy. Further, there is no standard of what is "enough".
That said, we could put a sentence in Science and Technology. Perhaps "Despite some advances, modern scholars believe that they did not develop much scientific and philosophical knowledge." We can put the three sources you found for this and put this at the end of the section. Would this suffice? Biz (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what advances? Can you provide a quote from a source with the page number?
Something like what you suggested would suffice as long as there is no WP:OR. Bogazicili (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite what advances?" is simply narrative to make flow from the previous paragraph, which has sources. Without it, it would look odd. Biz (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia. You don't put WP:OR for "narrative to make flow from the previous paragraph". Bogazicili (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The carefully cherry-picked quotes, chosen to negatively influence the reader's perception of the Byzantine Empire (i.e. POV-pushing), are easily contradicted by the numerous advances listed in List of Byzantine inventions (all of them sourced). These are what should be mentioned in the article, not POV platitudes like " modern scholars believe that they did not develop much scientific and philosophical knowledge" (which isn't even true). Khirurg (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is POV-pushing is only putting positives (from a certain perspective) while omitting negatives. Bogazicili (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're making discussions harder than they need to be @Bogazicili. You could have responded with a modification such as "Some modern scholarship challenges that there was any meaningful scientific and philosophical knowledge generated." Please find consensus with @Khirurg for us to move ahead with this, I'll support wording on what you both agree on. Biz (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz: sorry but reaching consensus becomes harder when you suggest WP:OR for narrative flow. These are core Wikipedia policies. And this article is going through FAR.
When you say "Some modern scholarship", are there any sources that challenges above quotes?
The question I'm asking you is this. Why do you weaken the wording without showing alternative sources?
How about your earlier suggestion: modern scholars believe that they did not develop much scientific and philosophical knowledge.
I am not opposed to modifying that sentence but only if you provide other sources. Bogazicili (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with this statement is that it's opinion and making an absolute judgement. I would prefer some ambiguity. I've only reviewed this section, not done extensive readings on it, but based on what is written in that section, it seems bizarre to make this statement.
Other scholarship that better supports your point:
I'm keen to move on from this so how about this, copy editing it: Modern scholars claim there was little scientific and philosophical knowledge created during the empire's existence. If we add the source above, I think it better supports the statement. Biz (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely unwarranted and I strongly disagree with adding such opinions in the article. Literally entire books have been written about science, engineering, and philosophy in the Byzantine Empire [5]. Constantinople even had a forerunner of the modern university. There is more than enough to create a separate spin-off article on the subject of science, technology, and philosophy in the BE. I also note that we rarely add such claims to articles about empires, even those that were much less innovative. Khirurg (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had time to research this interesting topic but the article has too many others issues to address as priorities. The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium might have something we can reference. Unfortunately, unless you can suggest sources to counter balance Bogazicili's claim that excluding this is an NPOV issue, we are forced to include it. Biz (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not forced to include it, the first chapter of source I've linked "A Companion to Byzantine Science" gives an excellent overview as to why these assumptions about Byzantine science are outdated. It is obviously too long to reproduce here, but one quote is: Therefore, in contrast to the decades-old image of a profoundly ossified group of Byzantine scholars locked within their world view and blindly fixated solely on the writings of their ancestors, we have discovered many Byzantine scholars (from a list of 240 savants that has emerged from a first survey of a work in progress) whose work has called in question these negative assumptions. Khirurg (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, I've read that article. Inventions are not the same as scientific progress. We already mention the hospital and Greek fire, though as I've noted above the latter's origins are not clear. Things like musical instruments and using forks to eat are more cultural than scientific or philosophical. I did History of Science as a minor 40 years ago and it was all Ancient Greece then the Enlightenment, with honorable mentions for the Arab alchemists. The Romans were not great scientists in the way we understand the term now. John (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but they were fantastic engineers. The Haghia Sophia alone was a major breakthrough in architecture and engineering, designed by the leading mathematicians of their day. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John, I understand what you are sayinng. I don't think anyone argues that the Byzantine Empire made scientific progress that is comparable to the Enlightenment or Ancient Greece anyway. Acknowledging that is one thing, but feeling the need to explicitly say that in the article is another, as if Byzantium was some exceptionally bad and uncivilized empire that their stagnation needs to be explicitly stated. Piccco (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. You said it better than I did. Khirurg (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"or with having produced a great literature" That is news to me. I live in Greece, and the country still produces music adaptations of the Acritic songs, Byzantine epic poems. Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that an alternate source has been found, A Companion to Byzantine Science, and WP:NPOV sentence should be added bringing together the above quotes and perhaps information from the introduction chapter of the new source.

Note that even the new source uses caution:

Even if Byzantine society did not develop science as it is understood in modern and contemporary times ... p. 8 Bogazicili (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demography section

Every time I make an edit there seems to be another issue. Biz, why did you make this change [6]:

from

Roman or Byzantine Empire is referred to as multiethnic by various historians.[209] Kaldellis suggests that Romanization had lead to the emergence of a common identity among people from various cultural backgrounds.[210]

to

Some historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis suggesting Romanisation lead to the emergence of a common identity.[205]

Even Kaldellis who suggested forming of an identity did recognize people come from different cultural background.

Kaldellis 2023, p.26

Modern historians routinely call the Roman empire “multiethnic” but rarely name the ethnic groups in question. To be sure, the ancestors of these new Romans came from vastly diverse cultural backgrounds: they had built pyramids, written the Hebrew Bible, sacrificed children to Baal, and fought at Troy, and many once had empires of their own. They had different norms, practices, memories, gods, cults, and languages. They lived in the Nile river valley, in the rocky uplands of Cappadocia, in the fertile coasts of western Asia Minor, on Greek islands, or along the forests of Thrace. Yet this diversity, except for the ecological, was measurably on the wane.

...

But more than Hellenism, it was Romanization that congealed millions of provincials into a common identity

Why are you omitting that even Kaldellis recognizes different cultural backgrounds?? Bogazicili (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather then see this in a negative, consider additional review as part of the process. I moved your contribution to the top, I am not trying to reduce your contribution but I hope you understand why it needed copy editing (the start of the sentence was especially not well written and it could be said with less words). To your questiom, you are emphasising only part of the sentence and missing this "...the ancestors of these new Romans..." and elsewhere in the article we talk ahout 212 when all men became citizens -- it means people in the empire where born at this time as Romans. I hope you appreciate that with this source you added, Kaldellis is making the point that it was not multiethnic, but a "Roman" ethnictiy. Which when added with "Some historians consider the empire multi-ethnic" means we give balanced coverage on the debate. But if you disagee, perhaps John can help us make better copy edit. Biz (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To submit work here is to accept that it can and will be ruthlessly reedited by others. This matter goes way beyond copyediting. I'm assuming there were no censuses in those days to accurately record people's ethnicity and language, and that the DNA database from the time is tiny or absent? So we are down to how modern scholars view the sources. This may vary greatly and I'd be in favour of a light touch that covers all views that exist in the mainstream now. John (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz and John: The issue is I don't think Biz's change accurately summarizes Kaldellis. While Kaldellis talks about a common identity, he also adds qualifiers.
Kaldellis 2023, p.27:
Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity Bogazicili (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the time period. The later empire, which is not covered as well, was much less diverse and much more Hellenic in character. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. I think we can add that as well. Bogazicili (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my modified proposal which can apply to any period after 212:
Some historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis suggesting Romanisation led to the emergence of a common identity between these groups of people.
On a side note, and this is in a 2024 source in the legacy section with Ivana & Anderson but the entire discussion of "multi-ethnic" is an issue for historiography and a reflection of modern bias in historians. So we should tread lightly on this point, as John wisely suggests. Biz (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, or something like it, should be fine. John (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz and John: I would only change two things:
Some Various historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis suggesting Romanisation led to the emergence of a common identity between these diverse groups of people.
Adding diverse better reflects the above quote from page 27. What do you think? Bogazicili (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that will work for now. I also think, speaking as a former admin, that this is an area likely to lead to future editing conflicts. Every Greek or Turkish nationalist will have a strong view about the ethnic and linguistic make-up of the Byzantine Empire. Our coverage needs to reflect the great uncertainty about the matter. As with science, our modern understanding of ethnicity and cultural identity would not have existed in 800 AD. We should blandly summarise the best modern sources. If the sources disagree or are lacking, we should note that. We should also consider leaving an invisible comment not to change it without discussion, once we come up with a form of words we are happy with. John (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with what John just said. "Various" sounds weird, but I'm ready to move on from this so ok. Here is a revised version to make it flow better: Various historians regard the empire as multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis arguing that Romanisation fostered a common identity among these diverse groups of people. Biz (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while this is certainly true of the early period, especially before the Arab conquest, it became less and less true as time went on, and was certainly not the case for the Paleologian state. I do remember reading somewhere that the latter was something almost resembling a Hellenic ethno-state, but can't recall the source. In general, I think there is currently a lot of emphasis in the article on the early, pre-Heraclean empire, while the later centuries are somewhat neglected. The empire underwent significant demographic changes over the centuries, and this should be reflected in the article. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. So we discuss Roman identity in this section now, we talk about how Greek evolved into the main language in Languages, and we discuss the development of Christianity. This section also covers population number changes. What other demographic changes is missing to better represent the later eras? Biz (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what John says and I'm not opposed to Biz's wordings either. I also agree with Khirurg's yesterday's point that indeed the composition of the empire changed drastically throughout its 1000 years history, which could be briefly acknowledged too, since the vast state of Justinian is nothing like the shrunken empire of the late periods. Something of the sort "With the loss of territories, the empire gradually became less ethnically diverse as it was concentrated mostly in its Greek and western Anatolian provinces". Khirurg, what you mentioned, I believe, is in the Revival of Hellenism section. Bogazicili seemed positive with that too, so I guess we could work on something. Piccco (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complicated topic as it conflates ethnicity, language, identity and geography. But if we can replace "Greek" with Southern Balkan, I'm amendable to this. With the caveat it depends on what sources we use and their language if we make this a second sentence. Biz (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz I guess that could work too. I do believe that the decline in ethnic diversity in the middle and late periods is essential to understanding Byzantine demography throughout its history, given that vast territories had been lost in North Africa and the Levant, for example. Piccco (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz: are you making this change? If "various" sounds weird, you can change it with "multiple". It's just that "some" sounds more weaselly than other options to me. Bogazicili (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, lets do this as an interim solution. I'm thinking identity may need expansion. Biz (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Expanding identity is what I suggested at FAR page last month, with an entire quote:
The Oxford History of Byzantium, Chapter 11: Palaiologan Learning

An indicator of changing perspectives is provided by the word ‘Hellene’, which, before the thirteenth century, had predominantly meant ‘pagan’—a pejorative term whose origin goes back to the books, apocryphal and genuine, of the Old and the New Testaments. There ‘Hellene’ simply denotes a non-Jew, i.e. a gentile. The negative meaning of ‘Hellene’ was absorbed by ecclesiastical and secular elites in Byzantium’s early centuries, almost completely eliminating its neutral use. By the thirteenth century, however, intellectuals started proudly affirming that they were members of the ‘Hellenic nation’. Under the new conditions of relative ethnic homogeneity and even some xenophobia, their search for roots led them back to the glorious Hellenic past. So with many intellectuals, but not all: when Demetrius Kydones translated into Greek the Summa contra gentiles of Thomas Aquinas (in 1354), he still called it Book against the Hellenes

Bogazicili (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A number of historians" could've fit too, if we were looking for an alternative for "various" or "multiple", which in my opinion sounds the most neutral. Piccco (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section, like the "Language" section before it, suffers from the problem of trying to make too much of what is written about the early empire. The original Kaldellis quote cited above is explicitly about the situation c. 300. Itisme below quotes the views of Constantine VII, reigning in the tenth century. If anyone thinks referring to an eleven-century-existing institution as an unchanged "the empire" is not the major problem, and that whether "various"/"multiple"/"some historians" is somehow more important, I've got a clock to sell them. It's in London, and it's quite big, if anyone's interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people, including myself commented on that, see above.
The sentence that was agreed upon still does give a good overview, and is good enough to start the section I think. Ideally it should be followed by changes as time went on. Bogazicili (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 yeah you are right for that again. As Bogazicili noted, several editors pointed this out too in the discussion above. There were indeed some major changes in the composition of the empire from the vast state of Justinian to the shrunken state of the Palaiologoi, which would have resulted in a decline in the diversity of the earlier periods (coupled with cultural/linguistic assimilation). Piccco (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bogazicili was trying to falsely suggest that Kaldellis claimed the people who identified as Romans in the Byzantine period were culturally or ethnically diverse. We must not ignore this confusion. Kaldellis never made such a claim. His wrote a whole book to disprove that myth.
We must clarify that when we say decline in diversity we mean the diversity of the non-Roman population that lived in the Byzantine Roman state.
Kaldellis himself argues that the Byzantine Romans had an identity much closer to an ethno-national concept than a multicultural imperial one. It’s frustrating that so many people keep misrepresenting his work (not talking about you), claiming he says the Byzantines had a multiethnic, multicultural identity, when in reality, they likely haven’t even read all of his book, or simply ignored 99% of what he wrote.
Kaldellis quotes on page 8 of Romanland Emperor Konstantinos VII who argued against mixing Roman bloodlines with other ethnicities, emphasizing the distinct race/genos, language, customs and laws of each nation. Konstantinos VII wrote:

“For each nation (ethnos) has different customs and divergent laws and institutions, it should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and activate the associations that it needs for the fusion of its life from within its own nation. For just as each animal species mates with its own race (homogeneis), so it is right that each nation also should marry and cohabit not with those of a different tribe (allophylon) and tongue (alloglossoi) but of the same tribe (homogeneis) and speech (homophonoi).“Then Kaldellis even suggests that this is a racist, xenophobic and nationalist according to modern standards

Kaldellis then on page 8 of Romanland comments on Konstantinos VII’s views, noting how they would be interpreted today:
"Today this position might be deemed isolationist, xenophobic, and racist, and certainly nationalistic. It goes beyond the idea of the nation as a community of values and postulates biological kinship as  its foundation...
Konstantinos even compares the nations of the world to different animal species. His logic defines the Romans as one nation (ethnos) among others. Konstantinos does not say that they are qualitatively different or better than others, though presumably he did believe it. He defines nations by customs, laws, institutions, language, and intermarriage, which makes each nation also into a “race” or “tribe” (genos or phylon). This is a fundamentally secular conception...
Konstantinos’ concept is equivalent to standard modern definitions of the nation.14 Byzantinists are disingenuous when they say that the Byzantines would have been “surprised” to hear themselves described as a Roman nation.15 As we will see, they consistently claimed to be precisely that. Instead, they would have been surprised by the modern error that “Roman” was somehow a multiethnic category. This modern idea would have sounded to them like a contradiction in terms, as for them Romans and foreign ethnics were separate categories. Konstantinos also violates the modern expectation that a Byzantine would point to religion as his defining trait. "
Itisme3248 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldellis never claims that the new Romans were direct descendants of Egyptians, Phoenicians, or other ancient non-Greek peoples. When he talks about "diverse backgrounds," he means the different regions of the Hellenistic world, Greeks from Athens, Cappadocia, and various parts of Anatolia, who became Romanized. The kind of diversity he describes is more like the regional differences within medieval France or Germany, not some vast multicultural mix. Greece and Anatolia had many Greek-speaking tribes that were absorbed into the Roman identity, and that’s the diversity he’s talking about. You're overstating how different these people were from each other.
The Byzantine Romans living in Egypt and Syria were not the same as the native Egyptians or native Semitic populations of Syria. They were largely descended from ancient Greek settlers from the Hellenistic period, as well as later Byzantine Roman-era settlers. While these regions had long histories of diverse civilizations, the people who identified as Romans in these areas were culturally and ethnically tied to the Greco-Roman world rather than the pre-Hellenistic native populations.
Do not be confused, mostly, it was the descendants of the ancient Greeks who were Romanized. They already shared a common identity as Hellenes before becoming Romans. Do not twist this into an argument that the Byzantine Romans were primarily Romanized non-Greek peoples. The majority of them came from populations that had long been part of the Greek-speaking world and simply adapted to Roman political identity which then evolved into an ethno-nationalist identity.
The Byzantine Romans were really intolerant of other cultures. For example they didn't even allow Egyptians or Syrian Semites in Constantinople
This is a quote from the Romanland Book by Anthony Kaldellis:
"cast Egyptians as stubborn, litigious, and proud of the scars left by the lash when they failed to pay taxes. 90
Egyptians did not emigrate to Constantinople in great numbers during the City's initial growth spurt. In the sixth century, Justinian even appointed two units, called the Syrian-Catchers and the Egyptian-Catchers, to arrest Syrians and Egyptians who tarried in the capital and send them packing. The burden was on them to prove that they were not Syrian or Egyptian.91 Universal Romanness had not yet bridged these gaps."
The Byzantine Romans did not see other Christian citizens as Romans, despite them having Roman citizenship. The Roman identity was beyond just citizenship, it was an actual ethnic identity according to Kaldellis
Also the ancient Romans did not treat Greeks and non-Greeks the same.
Quote from the Romanland Book by Anthony Kaldellis:
"lous to outsiders, and Egyptians proper elicited fiercer prejudices. The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. "You will know true Egyptians," he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter's supporters denounced them as "bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt's ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech." This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek."
Quote from the Romanland Book by Anthony Kaldellis:
"One is not a barbarian on account of religion, but because of genos, language, the ordering of one’s politics, and education. For we are Christians and share the same faith and confession with many other nations, but we call them barbarians, I mean the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Albanians, Russians, and many others.”"
– Ioannes Kanaboutzes (fifteenth century)
Ioannes Kanaboutzes’ words succinctly summarize the distinction between being Roman and being merely Orthodox. Despite sharing the same Christian faith, many groups, including Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Albanians, considered “barbarians” due to their different ancestry, language, political structures, and customs. This quote directly challenges the modern myth of a pan-Orthodox Roman identity
Emperor Konstantinos VII argued against mixing Roman bloodlines with other ethnicities, emphasizing the distinct customs and laws of each nation. He wrote:
Quote from the Romanland Book by Anthony Kaldellis:

“For each nation (ethnos) has different customs and divergent laws and institutions, it should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and activate the associations that it needs for the fusion of its life from within its own nation. For just as each animal species mates with its own race (homogeneis), so it is right that each nation also should marry and cohabit not with those of a different tribe (allophylon) and tongue (alloglossoi) but of the same tribe (homogeneis) and speech (homophonoi).“

Konstantinos likened the separation of nations to that of different animal species, presenting the Romans as one distinct nation (ethnos) among others. His argument was secular and focused on maintaining cultural, legal, and ethnic purity.
Konstantinos’ concept is equivalent to standard modern definitions of the nation. Byzantinists are disingenuous when they say that the Byzantines would have been “surprised” to hear themselves described as a Roman nation. Instead, they would have been surprised by the modern error that “Roman” was somehow a multiethnic category. This modern idea would have sounded to them like a contradiction in terms, as for them Romans and foreign ethnics were separate categories.
There was absolutely nothing multi-ethnic about the Byzantine Roman ethnicity/nation. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing. How would you prefer we word this then? Biz (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already made the update. I cited multiple pages, though there’s probably more I could add if I spent more time looking. I don’t remember every page I read, but what I cited supports and clarifies what Kaldellis actually meant, avoiding the mistaken idea that Byzantine Romans were a mix of various Romanized non-Greek peoples. He makes it clear that Romanization mainly applied to Greeks, who already shared a common Hellenic identity before becoming Romans. While some minorities were assimilated, they remained a minority. The vast majority of those who identified as Romans were descendants of Romanized ancient Greeks, not later assimilated non-Greek tribes.
Check it out -> Byzantine Empire#Society Itisme3248 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I had to revert. This is a sensitive topic and what you wrote advocates a ethnic-nationalist view which is big change. I will read the sources you provided and get back to you. If you have other sources, that would be helpful. Biz (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Kaldellis himself argues that the Byzantine Romans had an identity much closer to an ethno-national concept than a multicultural imperial one. It’s frustrating that so many people keep misrepresenting his work (not talking about you), claiming he says the Byzantines had a multiethnic, multicultural identity, when in reality, they likely haven’t even read all of his book, or simply ignored 99% of what he wrote.
Kaldellis quotes on page 8 of Romanland Emperor Konstantinos VII who argued against mixing Roman bloodlines with other ethnicities, emphasizing the distinct race/genos, language, customs and laws of each nation. Konstantinos VII wrote:

“For each nation (ethnos) has different customs and divergent laws and institutions, it should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and activate the associations that it needs for the fusion of its life from within its own nation. For just as each animal species mates with its own race (homogeneis), so it is right that each nation also should marry and cohabit not with those of a different tribe (allophylon) and tongue (alloglossoi) but of the same tribe (homogeneis) and speech (homophonoi).“Then Kaldellis even suggests that this is a racist, xenophobic and nationalist according to modern standards

Kaldellis then on page 8 of Romanland comments on Konstantinos VII’s views, noting how they would be interpreted today:
"Today this position might be deemed isolationist, xenophobic, and racist, and certainly nationalistic. It goes beyond the idea of the nation as a community of values and postulates biological kinship as  its foundation...
Konstantinos even compares the nations of the world to different animal species. His logic defines the Romans as one nation (ethnos) among others. Konstantinos does not say that they are qualitatively different or better than others, though presumably he did believe it. He defines nations by customs, laws, institutions, language, and intermarriage, which makes each nation also into a “race” or “tribe” (genos or phylon). This is a fundamentally secular conception...
Konstantinos’ concept is equivalent to standard modern definitions of the nation.14 Byzantinists are disingenuous when they say that the Byzantines would have been “surprised” to hear themselves described as a Roman nation.15 As we will see, they consistently claimed to be precisely that. Instead, they would have been surprised by the modern error that “Roman” was somehow a multiethnic category. This modern idea would have sounded to them like a contradiction in terms, as for them Romans and foreign ethnics were separate categories. Konstantinos also violates the modern expectation that a Byzantine would point to religion as his defining trait. "
Itisme3248 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itisme3248, thanks for that. A couple of points. Firstly, it would be better to make quotes from sources shorter and more focused. We are all busy people and it's a lot of extra work to read such long quotes. Secondly, there can be no place on this parent article for a long and detailed account of demography, or any other single topic. The article is getting better but it is still a little rambling and the last thing we want is a lengthy discussion here towards another lengthy section. Is Kaldellis the only source for this argument, or are there others who support it? I suggest drafting a sub-article, maybe at Demography of the Byzantine Empire, where such detailed matter may be more appropriate. John (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to add a lengthy demographic explanation. Look at my edit that was reverted. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis arguing that Romanisation fostered a common identity among these diverse groups of people."
The change you made is completely wrong and misleading. Anthony Kaldellis literally wrote Romanland to debunk the idea that diverse groups of people shared a common identity. If anyone actually read the quotes I posted above, they’d see that. But instead, people just went ahead and made edits that misrepresent his work. If reading a few paragraphs is too much effort, then why make edits at all, especially when it means putting words in the mouth of a historian whose books you haven’t even read?
Anthony Kaldellis literally wrote that mostly the Greeks became Romanized and only a few irrelevant minorities got assimilated later.
Scroll up and read what i quoted by Kaldellis above -> Talk:Byzantine Empire#c-Itisme3248-20250218192000-Biz-20250218190300 Itisme3248 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one here has actually fully read what Kaldellis said then no one here should be allowed to make false claims about what Kaldellis said. I'm adding my previous edit back. Itisme3248 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Itisme3248 I would personally advice you to keep engaging in discussions, and not editing alone, because the discussion about this section is still ongoing. Piccco (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People here went ahead and made edits despite me posting direct quotes from Kaldellis that completely contradict the changes made, which falsely attribute statements to him. This is so inaccurate that it could even be considered outright fabrication.
Bogazicili tried to misrepresent what Kaldellis wrote and then everyone believed him despite having no proof. Kaldellis entire Romanland book was literally written to debunk the myth of a multiethnic or multicultural Byzantine Roman population, yet Bogazicili blatantly claimed that Kaldellis said the Byzantines were multiethnic or multicultural that just happened to have a common identity.
Itisme3248 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Itisme3248 Please, try not to repeat the same long response several times in the already-lenghty discussion like you did above, this creates clutter and does not help. Several editors agree that we should expand on this topic a bit, because the current quote represents only the early period of Byzantine history. We are trying to slowly get there. Not everyone responds immediately, however. Piccco (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there’s more that needs to be added. Kaldellis explicitly states that for most of its history, the empire had a Roman majority ruling over non-Roman minorities. Before losing Egypt and Syria, the Byzantine Romans were still not a multiethnic population, the Byzantine Romans were a dominant ethnic group ruling over non-Romans, such as native Egyptians and Semitic peoples. The demographics section needs to clarify what Kaldellis actually meant, because there’s a persistent misunderstanding that everyone in the empire was Roman or identified as Roman, which is not what he argued. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries

MOS:CENTURY recommends being consistent within an article in using either words ("tenth century") or numbers ("10th century"). At the moment we use both. Either style is permissible, and I've, seeing both in use, been editing towards numbers. I prefer them mainly because they're shorter. Does anyone object to standardising them on numbers? John (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I support numbers. Subconsciously makes it easier to process information as well. Biz (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the numbers would read more natural. Aza24 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Some thoughts regarding the maps in the article:

  • The maps of the Empire at the time of Diocletian is somewhat out of the scope of the article, and is anyway very similar to that of the time of Theodosius. On the other hand, a map of the time of Constatine is missing but would be appropriate.
  • The choice of a map showing the empire in 814 is somewhat arbitrary. Previously the article showed a map of the empire in in 650 (after the loss of Africa and Syria), 717 (territorial minimum), and 1025 (territorial peak). A single map between 395 and 1204 is simply not enough.
  • A map of the Komnenian period and a map of the early Palaiologian period would also be useful.
  • Previously the article also had an animated map that showed the changes over time, which was also very useful.

Thoughts? Khirurg (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg, agree that removing the Diocletian map makes sense—I've just done so. I'd agree that more maps could be used, but we also don't want to flood the article with them—maybe five could be the maximum? Restore the 3 you've mentioned, keep the initial division and late Palaiologian maps?
I'm not sure where an animated map would even go. Aza24 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which 3 are you referring to? 650, 717 and 1025? I think a map of Komnenian and Paleologian would not be undue. Maybe 650 and 717 are not sufficiently far apart and we could drop one? What I've seen that works really well for the infobox is what they've done at Ottoman Empire, where they have several maps from different time periods and the reader can select which one to view. That avoids clutter and lets the user decide which time period is of interest to them, as well as making comparisons between different time periods really convenient. Khirurg (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that in the infobox; it would let us store all maps there and illustrate other things in the main body. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking of those three, yes—650, 717, 1025. Putting them in the infobox would work well; if you want to drop one, maybe the 650 would be removed, to still include the absolute territorial minimum. Aza24 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identity in Demography section

Starting a new thread as the above is hard to read. We need to understand the scholarship as well as get better consensus on wording.

Summary of positions

  1. @Bogazicili, after many discussions we had on the FAR, made this edit.. Roman or Byzantine Empire is referred to as multiethnic by various historians. Kaldellis suggests that Romanization had lead to the emergence of a common identity among people from various cultural backgrounds. I copy edited and it led to a discussion with the interim consensus of the following: "Multiple historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis arguing that Romanisation fostered a common identity among these diverse groups of people."
  2. @Khirurg believe we should reflect scholarship about the empire later resembling a Hellenic ethno-state. That the empire underwent significant demographic changes over the centuries and I'm waiting to hear from him to unpack that as what exactly beyond population decline that needs to be included
  3. @Piccco believes we need to add something about the decline in ethnic diversity in the middle and late periods as essential to understanding Byzantine demography throughout its history, given that vast territories had been lost in North Africa and the Levant, for example. We agreed on the following: "With the loss of territories, the empire gradually became less ethnically diverse as it was concentrated mostly in its Balkan and western Anatolian provinces.
  4. @Itisme3248 raises Kaldellis is being misinterpreted and his latest edit is as follows: Some historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis suggesting that Romanisation mainly of the ancient Greeks during the late Imperial Roman period led to the emergence of a common Roman identity among the Greek speakers. Some assimilations of minorities did happen later but the Greek speaking Romans were always the majority in Byzantine Greece and Anatolia.

@Itisme3248 Your contribution is appreciated but as the other editors have said please be mindful of their requests. As a response to this thread please propose how you want the text to look like, with sentences referencing the source (last name, year, page number will do). I haven't had time to read the scholarship but I want to put this out there and say I am looking at this when I get some time. Biz (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, we need to make a clear distinction between the ethnically diverse subjects of the Byzantine Roman state who didn’t identify as Romans and weren’t considered Romans ethnically, and the Byzantine Romans themselves, who were a unified ethnicity with a common, non-diverse culture and a strong ethno-national identity. Kaldellis makes it clear that the Byzantine Romans saw themselves as a distinct ethnos, separate from the diverse non-Roman populations within the empire. Their Roman identity was probably even more rigid and unified than modern ethnic groups, since there was no globalization and a strong emphasis on ethnic continuity.
This distinction is important to avoid confusion when discussing Byzantine demographics and identity. The empire ruled over multiple ethnic groups, but its politically dominant population overwhelmingly identified as Roman in an ethnic, not just political, sense. Any edits on this should reflect that distinction accurately, based on the sources.
Bogazicili’s edit misrepresents Kaldellis, falsely claiming he suggested diverse cultural groups had a common Roman identity but Kaldellis never says this.
Here’s a summary of page 8 of Romanland by Anthony Kaldellis:
Byzantine Romans saw themselves as a distinct ethnos, not as a multiethnic population. Romanization primarily applied to Greek-speaking populations, not all imperial subjects.
Kaldellis states that, by modern standards, Konstantinos VII’s views would be seen as xenophobic, racist, and nationalistic.
He argues that the Byzantine Romans saw themselves as an ethnic Roman nation, not a multiethnic empire, and that modern scholars have misrepresented this by overemphasizing religion. They were the politically dominant ethnic group within the Byzantine Roman state and ruled over non-Roman populations, who were subjects of the empire but not considered Romans in an ethnic sense.
Romanization primarily applied to Greek-speaking populations, not all imperial subjects.
Kaldellis cites Emperor Konstantinos VII, who opposed mixing Roman blood with other ethnicities and emphasized distinct national identities based on language, race/genos, customs, and laws.
Romanland p.104
In general Kaldellis talks about how the Greek language became the Roman language and was renamed to Romaic, obviously Semitic, Slavic and other languages were not seen as Roman, only Greek (Romaic) and Latin were.
Quoting Kaldellis:

"According to the evidence presented above, the Greek language began to be popularly called Romaic no later than the eleventh century, and possibly earlier"

Romanland p.68:
Kaldellis talks again about how being Byzantine Roman was not just culture, but also racial
Quoting Kaldellis:

"Birth and descent counted."

Quoting Kaldellis:

"It was also possible, in some contexts, to imagine the Romans as a large family. The national Roman collective could rhetorically take the place of one’s birth family, a sure sign that we are in the presence of a national ideology"

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, p. 30:
Kaldellis states that despite being Roman citizens and Christians, Egyptians were still seen as barbarians and non-Romans by the Byzantine Romans. He provides examples of this perception, such as in 403, a supporter of John Chrysostom described Egyptian bishops as having “half-barbarian names” and “barbaric” speech, despite being Christian. Kaldellis uses these examples to show that Byzantine Romanness was an ethnic identity that excluded even Roman citizens who did not fit their cultural and ethnic norms.
The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, p. 31:
Kaldellis states that Syrians and Egyptians were not allowed to stay in Constantinople, as they were not considered Romans by the Byzantine Romans. Emperor Justinian enforced this by appointing special units called the Syrian-Catchers and Egyptian-Catchers to arrest Syrians and Egyptians found lingering in the city and expel them. The burden was on these individuals to prove they were not Syrian or Egyptian, showing that, despite being imperial subjects, they were still seen as foreigners rather than part of the Roman identity. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Bogazicili:

"Kaldellis 2023, p.26

Modern historians routinely call the Roman empire “multiethnic” but rarely name the ethnic groups in question. To be sure, the ancestors of these new Romans came from vastly diverse cultural backgrounds: they had built pyramids, written the Hebrew Bible, sacrificed children to Baal, and fought at Troy, and many once had empires of their own. They had different norms, practices, memories, gods, cults, and languages. They lived in the Nile river valley, in the rocky uplands of Cappadocia, in the fertile coasts of western Asia Minor, on Greek islands, or along the forests of Thrace. Yet this diversity, except for the ecological, was measurably on the wane. ... But more than Hellenism, it was Romanization that congealed millions of provincials into a common identity"
Why are you omitting that even Kaldellis recognizes different cultural backgrounds??"
— User:Bogazicili 19:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Bogazicili above is misrepresenting what Kaldellis meant by "new Romans." Kaldellis was referring to the period when Roman citizenship was extended to all free inhabitants of the empire, which happened before the formation of the distinct Byzantine Roman identity. By "new Romans," he meant the newly granted Roman citizens in that context. This was not a statement about the ethnic origins of the Byzantine Romans but about how Roman citizenship, which was once limited to Latins, was expanded to include all peoples within the empire.
Bogazicili is using that quote out of context to suggest that Kaldellis claimed the Byzantine Romans came from a mix of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, including Egyptians and others. But if you actually read Romanland, it’s clear that Kaldellis wrote an entire book to debunk that myth.
Kaldellis consistently argues that by the Byzantine period, the Roman identity had solidified into an ethnos, a distinct national group, formed primarily through the Romanization of Greek-speaking populations. The Byzantine Romans were not a blend of various ethnic groups from places like Egypt but a cohesive people with a shared language, culture, and identity, distinct from the non-Roman populations they ruled over. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From: https://www.academia.edu/33442069/_The_Social_Scope_of_Roman_Identity_in_Byzantium_An_Evidence_Based_Approach_Byzantina_Symmeikta_27_2017_173_210?email_work_card=title

"After centuries of denials and evasions, the debate over the nature of Roman identity in Byzantium is finally picking up. I have previously argued that the Byzantines’ view of their own Roman identity was a national one, making Byzantium effectively a nation-state. Being a Roman was premised on common cultural traits including language, religion, and social values and customs, on belonging to the ἔθνος or γένος on that basis, and on being a “shareholder” in the polity of the Romans2."

For context γένος means race in Greek. The word gene/genetics comes from the Greek word genos. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the well-organized summary of everyone's points. As I said above, having seen the discussion regarding the opening word between "some" and "multiple", I proposed a number of historians which to me sounds the most neutral. AirshipJungleman29, also pointed out that the quote from Kaldellis is explicitly about the situation c. 300. so perhaps this could be reflected by adding the early empire in the sentense (?). There seems to be a consensus that the demographic changes (notably the decline in ethnic diversity) of the following periods needs a mention. The above quote by me is just a proposal to show how I would envision it.
Now when it comes to medieval ethnic groups, they change and adapt throughout history. They are often defined by things like language and culture, or at least all of these are often discussed interchangeably. For example, Stathakopoulos (2023) p.7-8 mentions the following The demographic changes had clear repercussions in the linguistic landscape of the empire. Up to the loss of the eastern territories in the seventh century, Byzantium was a clearly multilingual empire [...] When the Empire was on its way to becoming an increasingly homogenous state after the seventh century, the supremacy of Greek was almost absolute. So by that time, the Greek-speaking Romaioi of the empire are treated as a homogenous group and, per the source, the dominant one in the empire. The sentence by Treadgold (2002) added by AirshipJungleman29 in the Language section seems to follow the same logic of connecting the predominance of Greek and the 7th century territorial losses with a loss of 'ethnic' diversity.
Bogacili above also further touched upon identity, giving an example of the evolution of the word "Hellen(ic)" by some Byzantine intellectuals; an interesting discussion. Piccco (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium that Bogazicili shared previously at the FAR when we first discussed this issue seems like it's the WP:RS we need to consult with to make a decision on this topic.
Of the 23 chapters, there is one by Kaldellis and based on the abstract, I think it supports Itisme3248's interpretation. We need to see what other chapters from this book we can use, from other historians, on this complex topic. Obviously, this is being challenged in scholarship with Kaldellis the lead voice but we need to hear it from other scholars. As it stands, multi-ethnic is what older scholarship called it (ie, the 2008 Oxford Handbook for Byzantine Studies) but it's now no longer the consensus.
The question for me is when we can say this change occurred from multi-ethnic to only Roman ethnicity: the Edict of Caracella which Kaldellis talks about as creating homogeneity, the 6th century hellenisation we talk about in Languages (possibly related: Justinian's policy of forcing conversions we talk about in religion), the loss of territory to the Arabs that Stathakopoulos mentions (with areas that were bilingual like Egypt and not solely Greek), or later. Biz (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 212 AD the Edict of Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire but even after the Edict of Caracalla, having Roman citizenship didn’t mean someone was truly seen as Roman. At that time, only Latins were fully recognized as such by the Latin Roman society. However, the Romans clearly favored Greeks over other non-Latin citizens, as seen in the example below. This could have been one of the early steps in the Romanization of the Greeks, first granting them citizenship, then treating them on par with Latin Romans, and above other non-Latin and non-Greek subjects.
The New Roman Empire: A history of Byzantium p.30:

"The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek."

Nearly 200 years later, as a distinct Roman identity began forming among Greek speakers, we see Kaldellis noting that in 403 AD, Egyptian Christians were still regarded as barbarians and were insulted as "barbarian abominations". Despite being Christians and holding Roman citizenship, they were labeled as barbarians and treated with contempt. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you your point is very clear. We now need to see what other historians say. Anyone in The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium would be most helpful. Kaldellis is important, but not the only historian we want to consider. Biz (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Kaldellis is the only historian you can probably cite, because he is the only historian who has felt this was an issue worth talking about, in Romanland (2019) and unsurprisingly maintaining his argument in his Routledge Handbook entry. Until the question attracts further sympathetic or opposing views (they can exist! the Routledge Handbook introduction notes that Kadlellis' argument that Procopius was pagan has failed to convince most Byzantinists) it is in my opinion WP:UNDUE to include a sentence on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AirshipJungleman29. Wikipedia articles need to be slightly behind the curve as scholarship develops. If this becomes a mainstream view we can cover it. For now it would appear to be UNDUE. John (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium

I haven't read all of the discussion above, but here are some quotes from The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium:

p. 10, intro chapter:

Kaldellis strives to clear up a great deal of confusion among historians who are taken in by these labels and assume that Byzantium was a multi-ethnic empire because it consisted of Macedonians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians, and the like. As we observe in this chapter, being a “Roman” cut across stereotypes and ethnic divides. What emerges is a “Romanness” more widely diffused and with deeper cultural and social roots than assumed by many Byzantinists.

p.81:

Much has been written around Roman identity in relation to the Byzantine state, whether as “collective identity,” pre-modern “Nation-state,” or deconstructed “multi-ethnic Roman Empire.”1 There has been some recent opposition to such views. For example, Meredith Riedel disagrees with such views and suggests that neither definition of Byzantine identity favoured by scholars like Stouraitis and Kaldellis applies

p.257, Provincial Identities in Byzantium chapter by Kaldellis, Conclusion section:

We must distinguish among foreign groups that were present on imperial territory (e.g., Goths in the early period, Slavs and Varangians in the middle period); groups long resident in the empire who were nevertheless still perceived as ethnically non-Roman (Jews, possibly Egyptians and Isaurians in the early period); and provincial pseudo-ethnicities that existed only as subcategories of mainstream Romans. Based on the latter alone—Thracians, Macedonians, Helladics, Paphlagonians, Lydians, Pisidians, Cappadocians, and the like—we should not classify Romanía as a “multi-ethnic empire.” These were not true ethnicities, but regional subclassifications of Romans. ...

Given above, we should note the disagreement and give a short summary with in-text attribution in line with WP:NPOV. I can take a look at this later. Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The texts you sent mostly confirm that groups like Slavs, Goths, Arabs, Egyptians, and Jews were not considered Roman, which directly contradicts the idea that Byzantine identity was multicultural. You tried to argue that the Byzantine Roman identity was multiethnic, but even the sources you provided don’t support that claim.
Macedonians, Cappadocians, and similar groups were just Romanized Greeks from different regions, not separate ethnicities. The very text you cited is pointing out the confusion surrounding this issue, it’s arguing against the idea that they were distinct ethnic groups.
Also, when scholars disagree with a historical argument, they need primary sources to back up their claims. The issue here is that those who disagree with Kaldellis don’t provide any. Kaldellis is one of the only historians living in the West who has based his conclusions about Byzantine identity on primary sources, while others rely on secondary sources that simply repeat modern interpretations without primary historical evidence. That’s circular citation, which violates Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. If Wikipedia enforces rules about proper sourcing, then why shouldn’t those same standards apply to the scholars being cited?
Kaldellis even points out that previous scholarship has failed to fully examine the evidence found in primary sources regarding who exactly was included when Byzantine sources referred to "Romans."
page 174 of The Social Scope of Roman Identity in Byzantium: An Evidence-Based Approach:

It concerns a specific point that no one has so far elucidated fully with reference to the evidence found in the sources: What was the social scope of attributions of Roman identity in Byzantine sources? In other words, when the sources refer to Romans in Byzantium do they mean a narrow Constantinopolitan elite or do they refer to a much larger population, including that of the provinces, which crossed the divides of social class?

Itisme3248 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said: Also, when scholars disagree with a historical argument, they need primary sources to back up their claims. The issue here is that those who disagree with Kaldellis don’t provide any.
We don't critique the scholars on Wikipedia, we just try to summarize sources here. When sources contradict, that contradiction is explained in line with WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a secondary source doesn’t rely on primary sources, then it’s not even a proper secondary source, it’s just a scholar’s personal wish for something to be true.
I'm not the one criticizing here, Kaldellis himself has repeatedly criticized this issue in his books and articles, pointing out that many modern scholars make claims about Byzantine identity without relying on primary evidence. Instead, they cite other secondary sources that also lack primary evidence, creating a circular system where scholars keep repeating each other’s claims to reinforce something that isn’t actually supported by historical texts.
We wouldn’t use a fantasy TV show as a historical reference, so why should we accept secondary sources on Roman identity when they aren’t backed by primary records? If a historian’s claim isn’t based on actual historical sources but instead on a web of secondary citations repeating the same unverified ideas, then it’s not real scholarship, it’s just speculation masquerading as fact. It's more like mythology at this point. Modern Mythology is not a valid secondary source for historical claims. Itisme3248 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can add something like "Kaldellis criticizes ..." based on source above if people think it's WP:DUE. But it doesn't invalidate the opinions of other scholars. The above is also one journal article, we need overview sources such as review articles or books.
And even Kaldellis acknowledges the diversity, at least in early empire, from the above quote: Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity. I haven't read how he described later periods of the empire. Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldellis was referring to the diversity of people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans. The "Roman name" on paper may have encompassed different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, but that does not mean those groups were considered Romans in an ethnic sense. The passage you’re quoting says that this diversity was already disappearing, with local traditions fading under Roman law and cultural assimilation. But, this did not mean barbarian non-Romans/Greeks became ethnically Roman, but only that they lived under the same legal and administrative framework as the Romans and Greeks.
You tried to make an edit that falsely claims Kaldellis claimed that the culturally/ethnically diverse people identified as Romans. Your argument overlooks the fact that Kaldellis consistently distinguishes between Roman citizens and ethnic Romans even in the early period. Just because someone had citizenship didn’t mean they were seen as Roman. He provides multiple examples showing how non-Roman subjects, like Egyptians and Syrians, were still treated as foreigners, banned from settling in Constantinople, and even expelled from Alexandria for simply not being Greek and Roman. And all of this was already happening under Caracalla, he ordered the Greeks to expel the Egyptians from Alexandria simply because they were barbarians, even though Caracalla himself in 212 AD gave everyone citizenship, he only did it for tax reasons, not ethnic reasons.
The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Kaldellis p.30:

The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek.

You must look at Kaldellis' argument as a whole. You cherry picked out a phrase about diversity out of context but Kaldellis' broader point is that the Roman identity itself in all periods, including early periods, was not diverse but a distinct homogenous ethnos, made up of Latins at the beginning and then later of mainly Romanized Greeks. His work directly refutes the idea that the Roman ethnicity and identity were diverse. Reading his arguments in full makes this clear. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is from The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, page 27:
Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity
I don't see anything that it's just about "people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans" on page 27. Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop cherry picking quotes out of context. This is very dishonest of you, you keep doing that. Kaldellis literally talks against your misconception in many parts of his book, in fact many of his books are literally centered around disproving your misconception.
When Kaldellis refers to the "Roman name," he is talking about the legal and administrative category of Roman citizenship , not an ethnic identity.
After the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, all free inhabitants of the empire were granted Roman citizenship. This meant that legally, anyone living within the empire could be considered Roman in an administrative sense, but that did not mean they were seen as Romans ethnically according to Kaldellis.
Kaldellis makes it clear that while the Roman name on paper included a wide range of peoples, actual Roman identity remained exclusive. Ethnic Romans, first Latins, then later Romanized Greeks, still saw themselves as a distinct ethnos and did not view all imperial subjects as truly Roman. This is why Kaldellis himself said that non-Roman groups like Egyptians and Syrians were still treated as outsiders, despite having citizenship. They were expelled from cities like Alexandria and Constantinople, referred to as barbarians, and were not accepted as part of the Roman people.
So when Kaldellis says the Roman name encompassed diversity, he is referring to the legal status of Roman citizenship, not ethnic identity. The mistake is in conflating legal citizenship with ethnic belonging, which Kaldellis repeatedly argues against.
If you stopped cherry picking and read his whole books you would have known and realized that Kaldellis makes the exact opposite claim about diversity in the actual Roman ethnic identity. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Itisme3248 I appreciate your input and, as it turns out, Biz finds your interpretation of Kaldellis accurate. However, please just try to write shorter responses to avoid WP:TEXTWALL when possible. Piccco (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but i was left with no choice to share a lot of details against an obvious constant cherry picking out of context.
We might as well need a secondary source now to analyze Kaldellis's opinions/claims who is also a secondary source because some wiki editors just cherry pick quotes by Kaldellis to misrepresent what he meant. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019. Pp. xv, 373. | Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies | Cambridge Core even cambridge university talks about it. Itisme3248 is telling the truth and Bogazicili dude is wrong not everyone was a Roman Eternal RiftZ (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Kaldellis is one of the only historians living in the West who has based his conclusions about Byzantine identity on primary sources" does anyone who is not called Kaldellis say this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to put it — and where I believe a key difference lies with Kaldellis — is that he translates Greek sources that have long been known in Greek historiography, bringing new perspectives to light in English scholarship. I also believe this is why there is such a divide between Greeks on this topic and readers of English and German historiography, which dominates the scholarship. This is a healthy debate, and we should continue evaluating the sources. I'm currently going through the Routledge book's other chapters, and I appreciate everyone’s contributions so far. Let's keep the discussion respectful and focused on sources beyond Kaldellis now. Biz (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it will still take some time for non-Greek scholars to even realize that these primary sources exist. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biz, I agree it is a healthy debate but I think what we need for now is a short, bland summary of the currently accepted scholarship of the matter that we can all live with. John (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted @John. I’m working through every chapter of the ‘‘Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium’’ since only a thorough reading will allow us to fully grasp the scholarship on Byzantine identity. Unless another source meets the WP:RS standard we have set, this seems to be the most comprehensive work on the subject. I’ve previously come across Pohl’s work on Roman identity (see Roman people), but relying on his work like Kaldellis may raise concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV so seeing what else is out there. Biz (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed my read of the The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Kaldellis, Pohl and Stouraitis are identified as the scholars writing about identity that could be counted as recent scholarship. I'm sharing my notes below for everyone else's consideration who has an interest in this. Plenty we can use, the question is how do we do it in once sentence.
1. Finding Byzantium
  • The Social Order > Page 5: In some ways, Byzantium’s territorial losses created greater homogenization in the reduced Roman state, which was left both more Greek-speaking and more Chalcedonian in its Christianity.42 There was no longer a need for as much religious negotiation between Dyophysite and Miaphysite.
  • The Social Order > Page 5 As Byzantium moved into its middle and later period a variety of sources provide windows into other important markers of identity.
  • Imperial Identities > Page 7: From this perspective, the Byzantines of the sixth century appear to have a mixed imperial identity—Greek (broadly philosophical, cultural) and Roman (narrowly administrative, legalistic)—at the same time.
  • Macro and Micro Identities: Religious, Regional, and Ethnic Identities, and Internal Others > Page 10L After all, the Byzantine state was not a well-structured bureaucratic machine like the nation-states of modernity, which intervene extensively in the everyday life of their subjects with the aim of producing stable and coherent national identities.
  • Gendered Identities: Literature, Memory, and Self in Early and Middle Byzantium > Page 11: Little wonder then that from this period orthodoxy became an even more important indicator of one’s Byzantine identity, which could then be contrasted to the Latins or “others” (including native Byzantines) who had allowed themselves to be “infected” by these westerners’ “heretical” teachings.
5. Imperial Identity: Byzantine Silks, Art, Autocracy, Theocracy, and the Image of Basileia
  • Page 81 Much has been written around Roman identity in relation to the Byzantine state, whether as “collective identity,” pre-modern “Nation-state,” or deconstructed “multi-ethnic Roman Empire.”1 There has been some recent opposition to such views. For example, Meredith Riedel disagrees with such views and suggests that neither definition of Byzantine identity favoured by scholars like Stouraitis and Kaldellis applies (neither Constantinopolitan solid Roman community in both a religious and political sense, “Chosen people and Romanness,” nor Roman nation-state or republic as opposed to Empire). Riedel proposes instead that Byzantines saw themselves as the “Children of God,” who were chosen to supersede the Jewish people, to be baptised Christians and to become more like God.2
  • Relationship of Imperial Byzantine Image to the Concept of BASILEA (Byzantine Monarchy) > Page 89:The three sources of Basilea and of a largely non-verbal political theory Magdalino identified with: i. Hellenic (divine kingship, philosophical, and rhetorical tools for expression of imperial qualities) ii. Roman (institutions, systems, election of and title of Roman Emperor, Roman military imperial ruler cults and Constantinople as New Rome) and iii. Judeo-Christian heritage (Biblical monarchy, succession of Empires prefiguring the Roman Emperors and King as builder of Ideal Kingdom, Constantinopolitan court as imitation of Kingdom of Heaven).53
  • Page 96: Imperial Byzantine silks gave agency to Byzantine political theory in direct visual form. They served to keep subjects and foreign powers alike in mind of the great Roman, Hellenistic, and Judeo-Christian heritage of Byzantium, whilst legitimising their rule.
  • Notes > Page 96: In the context of debates on the definition of Byzantine identity in general, it appears that however much open to question, Imperial identity as autocracy upheld by theocracy, may have offered an anchor upon which to secure the diverse identities of a multi-ethnic, budding “nation state,” which over centuries had evolved out of a deconstructed Roman Empire.
  • Notes > Page 96 For example, Ioannis Stouraitis, “Roman Identity in Byzantium: A Critical Approach,” BZ 107/1 (2014): 175–220; Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Cambridge MA: HUP, 2019), 159–278; Walter Pohl, Clemens Gantner, Cinzia Grifoni and Marianne Pollheimer Mohaupt, eds. Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018).
6. To Triumph Forever: Romans and Barbarians in Early Byzantium
  • Page 107 Despite a stern rejection in most recent scholarship of a simplistic dichotomy of civilised Romans versus savage barbarians,8 scholars of gender examining interactions amongst non-Romans and Romans in the decisive fifth century still tend to trace parts of the well-trodden path laid out long ago by Edward Gibbon, by which increasingly non-martial Romans in the West are gradually overwhelmed by manlier warrior-barbarian peoples, who then carve out post-Roman kingdoms; the East Romans are largely ignored.9
  • The Social Hierarchy > Page 108: Greeks and Romans over barbarians.13 So,
  • The Social Hierarchy > Page 108 Walter Pohl aptly sums, “identities are always constituted by differences, and the Romans had inherited a power scheme of ‘us and them’ from the Greeks, for whom they had initially been barbarians themselves.”15
  • The Social Hierarchy > Page 108 Barbarian was a matter of one’s perspective; those who disparaged Stilicho as a barbarian tended to be his enemies.20
  • Intelligent and Courageous > Page 112: He made it clear that only the ancient Greeks and Romans were able to combine an unyielding and warlike nature with the inclination for political life.57
  • Intelligent and Courageous > Page 113: The knack of ruling oneself by repressing one’s emotions and urges had long made up an essential component of Greek and Roman masculinity.65
7. Some Considerations on Barbarian Ethnicity in Late Antiquity
  • Debate > Page 124 The debate concerning ethnicity is primarily between two research centres: the already mentioned Vienna School gathered around Herwig Wolfram and the so-called Toronto School whose mentor is Walter Goffart. Building on the works of Reinhard Wenskus, Wolfram has constructed a model presenting the process of the formation of the Goths.11 It was thus a long series of Gothic ethnogeneses which ended in the Roman territory when the Ostrogoths settled in Italy and the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain. This theory has been developed in many respects by Wolfram’s former student, Walter Pohl.
  • Origo gentis Langobardorum as an Instrument of Shaping Longobard Identity > Page 134: Codifying this “counter-identity” gave the Longobard elite a powerful instrument that activated the ethnic identity of the Longobards at a time when only the consolidation of their community could allow them to achieve victory over the external enemy—Eastern Romans—who wanted to win back Italy from them.
11. Contested Identities in the Byzantine West, circa 540-895
  • Page 200 The inhabitants of the East Roman/Byzantine empire remained Romaioi and were ruled by the Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans (βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων/basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn).19 For the enemies of the empire, the inhabitants were Romans, but westerners tended to simply refer to people of the empire as “Graeci” (Greeks).20 This seems to be the implication of Erchempert’s less-than-positive appraisal of “Achivi” (Greeks) in the ninth century. Yet akin to the Umayyad (661–750) and Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) it was at varying points in its iterations multi-ethnic.21 Over the course of our period, one could posit the case for a narrowing of perception and the creation of an identity associated with a conscious Hellenisation that flowed from Constantinople. One example of this process was the disappearance or at least the marginalisation of Latin speakers and communities in the Balkans during the seventh century.22 One could suggest that composite identities such as “a” Byzantine identity are in themselves essentially oxymoronic, but one may see that identity is not ineluctably associated with a political authority but can operate tangentially with slower cultural and religious rhythms.23 Byzantine identity was then somewhat more than “Greek” and at the same time something else than simply “Roman” (in its classical context).24
  • New Realities in the Long-Seventh Century circa 602-751 > Page 204: By the end of this period, the Byzantine empire’s control became mediated through local power networks for example, in Naples, in Sardinia, and in the Balearic Islands that operated separately—although elites in these areas “funnelled” their legitimacy through adherence to the emperor in Constantinople. There was no inherent association in this period with the East per se, but a strong attachment to the Mediterranean focus of the empire.70 This
  • Page 208: Such then is the case in parts of Italy from the late-seventh century onwards. In this respect, then and aside from specific cultural isolates, Byzantium became a “foreign” place with an identity that remained focussed and mediated through local networks, where local identity stayed primordial. At any given point in time, elites might or might not be subject to cooptation in respect of authority and power. This might, on the one hand, result in direct governance through imposed representatives sent by Constantinople but increasingly in our period it simply meant an association between elites and the centre. In practice, this might mean no more than that an individual was bestowed with a Byzantine honour, for example, the dux of Benevento, and that emperors were acknowledged in charters. We must, however, as we have seen remain wary if not sceptical at narratives that seek to homogenise the varied and multifaceted experiences of individuals across the whole of the central Mediterranean and how their responses and impulses were demonstrated.
12. Overlapping Identities and Individual Agency in Byzantine Southern Italy
  • Page 218: it categorises complex individuals into discrete groups based on tiny pieces of information. Ethnicity and religion are, along with sex and language, the main markers of identity for individuals in the writing of the history of southern Italy.
  • Page 218: Yet ethnicity is not a firm category. Dion Smythe writes that ethnic identity is not a black and white matter, but rather “a spectrum of shades of grey.”5 Placing historical figures into groups based on their ancestry is itself a constructed oversimplification of a complex reality.
  • Southern Italy in Context > Page 220: Identity cannot be reduced to a single factor or two, nor should we expect it to be expressed with uniform consistency by individual human beings, and this suggests a degree of caution should be taken by scholars willing to understand the region.
  • Southern Italy in Context > Page 221: At the invitation of the papacy, the Franks from north of the Alps became active in Italy, capturing the capital of the Lombard kingdom of Pavia in 774.
  • Identity and Political Allegiance > Page 222: to depopulated areas, they did not account for the overall trend of demographic increase. Ghislaine Noyé suggests that the increasing Hellenization of southern Italy (particularly Calabria) did not result from deliberate imperial attempts to forge identity. She
  • BIdentity and Political Allegiance > Page 223: Constantinople’s role in deliberately shaping religious identity is a bit more difficult to ascertain. Religious identity could certainly influence political identity, especially in the case of the Byzantine Empire, where there was a strong connection between church and state. The courtship of the nascent Bulgarian church by both Rome and Constantinople in the 860s, on the eve of the Byzantine resurgence in southern Italy, highlights the close ties that could exist between ecclesiastical affiliation and political allegiance on the ecclesiastical borderland between Greek and Latin Christianity.25
  • Overlapping Identities > Page 224: Certainly, the Byzantines did attempt to foster political allegiance in southern Italy. Rather than relying heavily on ethnic connections or using religious identity to connect the region with the capital, they used other means to promote political allegiance. The administration brought local leaders to the capital or offered them refuge, either as a way to overawe them with the size, wealth, and splendour of the capital, or to isolate them from local affairs. It granted imperial titles to important local figures, legislated, and showed force by sending large armies to provide security from outside destabilizing raiders.
  • Overlapping Identities > Page 224: Local rulers were more likely to identify with Byzantium, as evidence on both coinage and in charters shows, when Constantinople was able to be militarily useful.
  • Overlapping Identities > Page 224: While ethnicity and religious identity are often some of the few pieces of information the historian knows or can surmise about an individual in the source record, the links between ethnic and ecclesiastical identity and political allegiance were not fused tightly together. Cases that run counter to what one might naturally assume, those in which these identities did not result in political allegiance, can serve as a helpful reminder that identity is complex and often affected by local priorities or a self-interest shaped by influences on identity that competed with ethnic or religious connections. These underlying influences on how a person understands himself and his relation to the rest of the world often go unrecorded by the sources, but the history of Byzantine southern Italy is full of instances of actions that contradict the expectations that link ethnic and religious identity with political allegiance and its behaviour. Not only did groups and individuals sharing ethnicity and religious affiliation fight among themselves, but they were willing to ally with those outside of the group against those with whom they shared these aspects of identity.
  • Overlapping Identities > Page 226: In some ways, the division between Latin and Greek Christianity might be the place where group identity should be most evident, considering the close connection between church and state in Byzantium. Yet there are numerous examples where the divisions do not seem to have mattered much. As Valarie Ramseyer noted, “People in the early Middle Ages did not belong to a religion as much as they practiced one.”53 Scholars have noted the lack of animosity between Greek and Latin Christians in southern Italy, even as high-level ecclesiastical rhetoric suggested otherwise.54
  • Conclusion > Page 228: Relying too heavily on specific categories of group identity obscures the dynamism of the pieces by reducing individuals to a single, even if dominant, aspect of their individuality. Of course, the historian desires to appreciate not only the individual pieces but also the entire image.
14. Provincial Identities in Byzantium
  • Page 248: For example, there is the model of Byzantium as a “multiethnic empire,” which presupposes the existence of many ethnic groups in the empire’s territories. Which were they? Until 2019, there was no focused study of ethnicity in Byzantium and so potentially any group that had an ethnic-seeming name could be listed as such. A book from 1985 listed “Macedonians, Cappadocians, Bulgarians, and Varangians.”2
  • Roman and Local Identities in Byzantium > Page 249: This chapter will try to make sense of Byzantines’s provincial identities within the overarching framework of their Roman identity, which, by the middle Byzantine period if not earlier, was an unambiguously ethnic one. The Romans of Byzantium were, roughly speaking, that part of its population that was Greek-speaking and Christian Orthodox. It was not these qualities alone that made them Roman, but we can track them more easily through them. This Roman identity, moreover, was not exclusively focalised on Constantinople (which was also known as New Rome), but on “Romanía,” which was the common name for the whole of the Roman state and its society; after the tenth or eleventh century it also became its official name in court documents.
  • Notes > Page 258: characteristics to such identities.”59 Byzantine provincial groups lacked almost all the constitutive elements of a real ethnicity, such as a separate language, religion, laws, social structure, distinct history, customs, and a sense that they were different from their neighbours, who in this case were just the Romans of the adjacent provinces.
Biz (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text

This is my proposal which can be referenced by several of the chapters above The people’s identity was anchored in Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian traditions. Scholars disagree on whether there was a singular collective identity—such as Roman or Orthodox Christian—if it functioned as a distributed ‘multi-ethnic’ empire, or if it can be considered a pre-modern Hellenic ‘nation-state.’ Over time, as the empire lost territory, it gradually became less diverse, concentrating mostly in its Balkan and Anatolian provinces. Biz (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are WP:OR issues. "Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian" are listed for Basilea (p. 87), which is Byzantine Monarchy (p. 86).
But you are saying "The people’s identity". The source talks about monarchy, you are talking about the entire people. This is WP:OR.
The overall issue is the minimization of diversity in Byzantine Empire. Multiple historians call the Empire multiethinc.
In The New Roman Empire, Kaldellis says Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity (p. 27)
In Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, Kaldellis talks about their mixed background: p. 43
About the "Hellenic 'nation-state.'", the quote I gave from The Oxford History of Byzantium, Chapter 11: Palaiologan Learning was about intellectuals "By the thirteenth century".
Your above quote talks about In the context of debates on the definition of Byzantine identity in general, it appears that however much open to question, Imperial identity as autocracy upheld by theocracy, may have offered an anchor upon which to secure the diverse identities of a multi-ethnic, budding “nation state,” which over centuries had evolved out of a deconstructed Roman Empire
You paraphrased all that "or if it can be considered a pre-modern Hellenic ‘nation-state.’ ". Again, that seems like a big WP:OR and WP:NPOV issue. Who calls Byzantine Empire "a pre-modern Hellenic 'nation-state.'"? Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:DUE, the entire logic doesn't make sense.
Even if we ignore all the above issues, which we shouldn't, why does your proposed sentence start with information that is in page 87 of the source?? The source is The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Ideally you should have started with the introduction chapter. This source is not an overview source such as the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. If you were citing the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies with its dedicated summary chapters, I can understand starting with page 87, but it doesn't make sense for The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that draft I was incorporating feedback earlier which you can see from the start of this broader thread but yes let's stick to sources now. I'm fine in referencing the introduction which synthesises but I don't agree dismissing outright the more focused chapters.
The medieval expression of a Greek identity is heavily influenced by Modern Greek national discourse. p.176 Strouratuis (2014). I deem it as a significant minority view as it's been a part of Greek historiography since the formation of the nation, and I liken it to another major view influenced by German historiography that has the Late Antiquity Roman Empire as their origin. As Strouratuis explains, this plus the "preponderant" multi-ethnic view you are in favour of, and thirdly a pre-modern nation state in which Romaness had the traits of national identity were the three main opinions about identity when he wrote in 2014. Given this was a decade ago, this is already aged scholarship and relying only on the multi-ethnic view referencing sources written before 2014 is WP:UNDUE
Strouratuis gives us additional commentary which is helpful
  • These refer to the continuance of Roman imperial structures in the East, the gradual linguistic Hellenization of the imperial administration, and the apparently increased cultural homogeneity. The latter refers to the conclusion of the process of Christianization in the sixth century as well as to the survival of only one lingua franca(Greek) within the contracted Eastern Empire after the seventh century. These developments seem to represent a better starting point for the formation of a state-framed national identity, or alternatively of a (Graiko‐)Roman ethnic identity among a core population,within the post seventh century Eastern Roman imperial order.
  • Anthony Kaldellis opened this discussion a few years ago in his monograph “Hellenism in Byzantium”. There he argued for the transformation of the so-called Byzantine Empire into a Nation-State up from the seventh century on-wards, in which the Roman political culture had assimilated them as ses and abrogated ethno-cultural diversity within the state-frame to create a Roman nation
Kaldellis explains his critique in page 248 of Routledge of the preponderant view where he states that the model of a "multiethnic empire" is based on assumptions and that before 2019 there was no focused study of ethnicity. His expands that a lot of what was called an ethnicity were just regionalisation. Your reference of p27 Kaldellis (2023) talking about the early Byzantine period is exactly this point. The following sentence says these are pseudo-ethnic names and he continues over the next few pages on his point that they were "Greek-speaking Romans" at this time who had forgotten their Asia-minor ancestors, and it was only a few with their separate religious communities that seem to have their identity survive and that continued under Muslim rule.
As for "Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian traditions" yes you're right this should be only applied to the state not the people which page 96 expands as a tactic by the emperors on the population and other powers. Replacement first sentence: Although the state anchored people’s identity in Roman, Hellenic, and Judaeo-Christian traditions, the population had more diversity but this is debated.
p5 in the Routledge introduction supports that there was greater homogenization following the 6th century, which is further repeated in page 7 and p11 supporting Orthodoxy in the late era which aligns with your p81 reference to Meredith Riedel who believes Christianity is the identity. However, before the 6th century I'm not sure how to word it and arguably, this is the WP:DUE issue as the "empire" lasted 1,123 years and we are only taking about at best 300 years. Kaldellis's view, even with your referencing, is suggesting a Roman Greek Speaking Christianity ethnicity. His view is clearly the "nation state" ethnicity, and referencing to him calling it "multi-ethnic" view selectively choosing sentences not his overall argument which he states across all his publications.
For the second sentence: how do you propose we write it in light of the above? We haven't even discussed Pohl yet, but if we can get Strouratuis in addition Kaldellis (and related, correctly interpreting him) then we are tapping into the latest scholarship and balances the aged scholarship to make it WP:NPOV Biz (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop repeating your obviously cherry picked phrase by Kaldellis. We have been over this 100 times and everyone agreed that you cherry picked the phrase. At this point you are trying to promote your biased view.
"In The New Roman Empire, Kaldellis says Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity (p. 27)"
Kaldellis was referring to the diversity of people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans. The "Roman name" on paper may have encompassed different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, but that does not mean those groups were considered Romans in an ethnic sense. The passage you’re quoting says that this diversity was already disappearing, with local traditions fading under Roman law and cultural assimilation. But, this did not mean barbarian non-Romans/Greeks became ethnically Roman, but only that they lived under the same legal and administrative framework as the Romans and Greeks.
You tried to make an edit that falsely claims Kaldellis claimed that the culturally/ethnically diverse people identified as Romans. Your argument overlooks the fact that Kaldellis consistently distinguishes between Roman citizens and ethnic Romans even in the early period. Just because someone had citizenship didn’t mean they were seen as Roman. He provides multiple examples showing how non-Roman subjects, like Egyptians and Syrians, were still treated as foreigners, banned from settling in Constantinople, and even expelled from Alexandria for simply not being Greek and Roman. And all of this was already happening under Caracalla, he ordered the Greeks to expel the Egyptians from Alexandria simply because they were barbarians, even though Caracalla himself in 212 AD gave everyone citizenship, he only did it for tax reasons, not ethnic reasons.
The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Kaldellis p.30:
The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek.
You must look at Kaldellis' argument as a whole. You cherry picked out a phrase about diversity out of context but Kaldellis' broader point is that the Roman identity itself in all periods, including early periods, was not diverse but a distinct homogenous ethnos, made up of Latins at the beginning and then later of mainly Romanized Greeks. His work directly refutes the idea that the Roman ethnicity and identity were diverse. Reading his arguments in full makes this clear.
Itisme3248 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this, or any discussion of "identity" longer than a short sentence, meets WP:WEIGHT. As a reminder, subjects in the article should be represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. We agreed at the beginning of this rewrite that the best way to analyse prominence, for this article, is to look to the overview works, which as we have seen, do not discuss the issue in detail (aside from Kaldellis). A Routledge Handbook is the opposite: they are specialist publications for academic researches. Relevant Handbooks for us include "Byzantine Visual Culture in the Danube Regions, 1300-1600" and "Human-Animal Relations in the Byzantine World". I hope no-one is suggesting we devote over 60 words to both of those topics? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to one sentence, assuming it covers all the perspectives appropriately. What would be most helpful is if people suggest what that sentence is. But since you questioned, let me expand what I believe think actually matters.
I disagree with the idea that WP:RS are limited only to Oxford and Cambridge compendiums from 17–30 years ago, as representing a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. We also agreed that if a topic is mentioned in the narrative sources, it merits inclusion. The fact that Kaldellis is not only a major figure in this debate but is also actively challenging the earlier Oxford compendium (2002), which represents the previously preponderant "multi-ethnic" view, makes his perspective all the more essential. This is especially important because his interpretation shapes his entire narrative and it shapes future periodisation debates that could one day see this article be reduced to just a few paragraphs. If we fail to highlight and explain that lens to the reader, we risk presenting his view as settled fact—when, in reality, it remains highly contested. This is particularly important for a subject so deeply intertwined with nationalism and contemporary political debates, which I'm sorry to disappoint you, but is an entire chapter in Routledge and is cited in our legacy section. A chapter that is also cited by the highest WP:RS there is in this article, The English Historical Review, and which also discusses ethnicity and which should question if not rebalance your point of what coverage (and what really are) overview sources.
Strouraitis (2014), Pohl (2018), and Kaldellis (2019) are recognised as leading the scholarship, as evidenced by their mention in in Routledge and directly overlaps with other good articles, such as Pohl’s inclusion in Roman people, which Roman identity also redirects to. The fact in the rewrite of languages "multi-ethnic empire" is used is an example of how this article fails in quality as it violates WP:NPOV and why it may be worth understanding this topic a little deeper, regardless the fate of this single sentence. The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium synthesises these debates across multiple chapters on all dimensions and uses language that is both current and appropriate for discussing this complex subject. That alone provides significant value, whether or not individual chapters are directly cited.
To discuss Byzantine identity without referencing these scholars—or to dismiss The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium as not WP:RS—while suggesting that visual culture or human-animal studies are equally central, is humour that is irresponsible. The Byzantine Empire plays a foundational role in the national narratives of many modern nations and in both Western and Eastern European civilisation. If we can't treat this topic with the seriousness it deserves, we risk failing not only our readers but also our AI overlords absorbing our work, and we will be all the worse off for it. Biz (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's address the issues here sequentially:
"I disagree with the idea that WP:RS are limited only to Oxford and Cambridge compendiums from 17–30 years ago, as representing a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." this is not very intelligible. I assume you are trying to say "not only Oxford and Cambridge compendiums fulfil the "well-researched" FA criterion? You are correct, but I was discussing not breath of scholarship, but the next criterion: my point was that the overview compendiums clearly establish DUE prominence in a way other sources cannot. You have never participated in any sort of quality control process before this FAR, and so you underestimate how much emphasis is placed by reviewers on what is/isn't included; reference to overview sources which also provide an encyclopedic summary of the topic (just much longer) are the best way of justifying content.
As for "if a topic is mentioned in the narrative sources, it merits inclusion" ... just read any dozen-page portion of Kaldellis 2023 and make a list of how many topics he touches on, and whether you want to make a case for all their inclusion here.
" The fact that Kaldellis is not only a major figure in this debate ... it remains highly contested." I don't quite understand this argument. The majority viewpoint is challenged by a minority viewpoint, but since some things could happen in the future, WP:WEIGHT must be ignored and the minority view focused on? If the majority viewpoint agrees that Justinian's empire was "multi-ethnic" (something even Kadellis admits was possible! see Handbook, p. 254), that is a violation of WP:NPOV? I don't think so. As an aside, if you challenge a mainstream academic viewpoint, you become a major figure in the debate you created. That says nothing.
"This is particularly important..." Don't see why I should be disappointed that a subject which has received general attention is mentioned in Legacy; that seems entirely appropriate. Rather confused, however, how the EHR can be considered "the highest WP:RS there is in this article", and why it may "rebalance [my] point of what coverage overview sources". Care to explain those last bits?
I'm sorry, but if there's a viable point in your increasingly hyperbolic second and third paragraphs, I don't see it. It doesn't matter what any WP:GA says, it doesn't matter that an academic publication fulfils its basic functions, it doesn't matter what subjects you ascribe contemporary importance to. The facts are thus: the majority view on identity has been challenged by minority views (emphasis on the plural, curiously undiscussed above!). Kaldellis, Strouraitis, Riedel, Cassis, Pohl, and others are all "leading the scholarship", however you want to construe that, but they are not the unified monolith you pretend they are. They each have their own minority viewpoints, which have not yet achieved academic consensus. I would like to see another proposed formulation from you which better considers WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If the majority viewpoint agrees that Justinian's empire was "multi-ethnic"
That’s not what this debate is about. The issue isn’t whether the citizens of the Byzantine Roman state were diverse, it’s that someone tried to edit the page to falsely suggest that Kaldellis claimed the people who actually identified as Romans were multiethnic, which is completely inaccurate. Kaldellis completely rejects that idea in his books and articles.
Itisme3248 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two users on this talk page who keep cherry picking quotes out of context and steering the discussion off track to mislead people. This kind of subversive behavior needs to stop. Itisme3248 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of this page reads "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Byzantine Empire article." I personally am debating with Biz how to best improve this article. Biz brought up the phrase "multi-ethnic" in the "Language" section, and I am directly responding to that. If you do not want to participate in discussions about improving the article, and instead just have problems with someone's conduct, you can take it to WP:ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is literally titled "Identity in Demography section". It is about improving the claims on the Byzantine Roman identity. You are again being subversive and try to twist what this discussion in this section is about. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please apologise for that direct personal attack or open a section at WP:ANI. I will not engage with you further until you do. Biz, I look forward to your response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and Bogazicili have repeatedly derailed the conversation and misrepresented both our arguments and Kaldellis’ work. This kind of behavior is unacceptablee and honestly speaks for itself. I have no reason to apologize for pointing out these clear attempts to mislead and confuse others in this discussion. If anything, it’s you and Bogazicili who should be apologizing for distorting the discussion. If anyone else reads all my replies in this talk page, they will realize what is going on here. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was made because the user Bogazicili was trying to edit the page to falsely suggest that Kaldellis claimed the people who actually identified as Romans were multiethnic, which is completely inaccurate. Kaldellis completely rejects that idea in his books and articles. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree that we need to consider how reviewers approach these questions, and I appreciate that perspective despite my inexperience. However, I do think it's important to recognise that this topic is quite distinct — we’re dealing with a vast academic field covering a millennium-long state, where interpretations are shaped by different national traditions and scholarly approaches. In such a context, no single publication or publisher can fully set the standard.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the 2022 Routledge Handbook of Identity in Byzantium as not meeting WP:RS — particularly when it's a recent, substantial work that reflects ongoing scholarly discussions. By contrast, relying primarily on overviews like the 2008 Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is a form of selection bias, given how much the field has evolved. It's conservative to stand up to critiques, but to the point of being inaccurate. Kaldellis 2023 narrative has set a new standard, but we also don't want to be dependent on him and yet this topic is at the core of his scholarship so needs to be understood. I understand we don't want to be ahead of the scholarship but we should at least reflect where it currently stands.
My preference is careful judgment and balance, not making decisions based on one aged source's treatment. In this case, it seems we've converged on a practical solution despite my initial reluctance when it was first raised in January: 1 (maybe 2) sentences in the Demography section is the appropriate way to reflect the topic without undue weight. The broader question we're dealing with is less about identity itself and more about how we define and apply WP:RS in this article. When issues are raised — as Bogazicili did here — and discussed with relevant scholarship, I think it's worth engaging seriously and collaboratively, rather than dismissing the attempt. That's the process we should be following and what my reaction is for.
As for the EHR, my point is a peer review of books in a credible journal, needs to be recognised as a reliable source. Regarding the EHR (October 2024), it notes a pertinent point, "In so far as Byzantinists have addressed the politics of our discipline, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Byzantine studies suffers from nationalism." — this should instruct us to be particularly thoughtful with topics like ethnicity. The Routledge book has now made me question what even is ethnicity. Continuing to prioritise the framing from a 2008 compendium to assert that "multi-ethnic" in other sections is wrong as it's not the consensus anymore (I mean, how many minority views does it take). Is there even evidence, in 2025, that it is still the preponderant view that it once was? how about 2024? 2023? is there anyone in 2022, but no, not you Routledge, you don't count. I would suggest we remove the sentence in Languages for neutrality reasons, be mindful elsewhere in the article. and focus on ensuring the phrasing in Demography captures the necessary nuance without overstating any single viewpoint.
And yes, it's on me to propose an acceptable version which I will focus on. Biz (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiresome, Biz. For the last time, the Routledge Handbook is a reliable source. Now go back and read my above comments, keeping in mind that that fact is not in dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The multiethnic discussion began, because that's what it says in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 777. It's in the first sentence of Language chapter.

@Biz: when you suggest Although the state anchored people’s identity in Roman, Hellenic, and Judaeo-Christian traditions, the population had more diversity but this is debated, you are making it complicated. For example:

The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, p. 240

After Heraclius’s victory over Sassanid forces, the emperor initiated a formal policy of religious persecution against the Jews of the empire, resulting in the first edict of forced baptism in 636.

The above doesn't seem like "anchoring" to me. So the way you phrased above sentence might be factually inaccurate.

I know I gave quotes from several chapters in the Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium above, but I feel like that was a mistake. I was trying to summarize the disagreement in the field.

Seeing AirshipJungleman29's WEIGHT argument above, I agree we should be brief. Maybe we can add a sentence or two, using the overview source (The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies), Intro chapter of The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, and a recent review article if it exists? Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the proposed text, I think "Judaeo-Christian" is undue, as Bogaazicili's example shows above. It would be more accurate to leave it at "Christian", or, even better, "Orthodox Christian" to include the period after the Great Schism. Regarding "multi-ethnic", it is somewhat of a tautology, as all empires are by definition multi-ethnic. Has there ever been a mono-ethnic in history. Trivial, uninformative sentences such as "The Empire was multi-ethnic" are also a good example of the "Quality issues" discussed in the section below. Lastly, I also think it's important to focus on more recent scholarship such as Kaldellis 2023 in favor of older sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if all empires are multi-ethnic or not. For this Wikipedia article, if reliable sources about Byzantine Empire mentions it, then it becomes a question of if it is DUE or not.
The fact that Byzantine Empire is multiethnic is mentioned in overview sources (The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 777, first sentence in Language section). As Kaldellis himself notes (p. 43 ), it's in the introduction of Cyril Mango's book. I'm also seeing it in the intro chapter of another one of Cyril Mango's books, The Oxford History of Byzantium
It's definitely DUE. The rest about all empires being multiethnic is WP:FORUM-like discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if all empires are multi-ethnic or not. Seriously? You expect anyone to take this seriously? Was the Ottoman Empire "multi-ethnic"? Yes, it was. Because all empires are multi-ethnic. I have very little time for empty generaliztions, and the article does not have room for them. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text 2

Biz, with respect to Hellenic or Greek pre-modern nation-state, see the quotes in Draft_talk:Byzantine_Roman_identity#Original_Research. Even Kaldellis is very clear that most Byzantines did not consider themselves Greek

p. 12:

Naturally, the eastern Romans disliked being called Greeks. ...

pp 16-17:

Thus, as the west was moving away from the paradigm of the “Greek empire” and toward the ethnically vague notion of Byzantium, nationalist historiography in Greece ensconced the old ethnic model in its official view of the past. While there is skepticism about this model in Greece today, the empire’s official Hellenization in national discourse was possible only because western historiography had already stripped it of its Romanness. Some Greek national historians still go through the same motions of dismissing the testimony of the sources and ridiculing the idea that Greek- speaking Orthodox people can “ really” be Romans. By stripping off that false label, they hope to expose the Greek underneath.43 These moves were pioneered by western medieval writers and are still with us. For different reasons, therefore, both western and national Greek historiography have an interest to engage in denialism.

p. 29:

With the exception of a tiny number of intellectuals in the later period, the Byzantines themselves did not think they were Greeks and resented the name, which was imposed on them by the Latins.

p. 271, Conclusion section:

The evidence is extensive and incontrovertible. What we call Byzantium was a Roman polity populated overwhelmingly by identifiable ethnic Romans and a number of ethnic minorities. “Roman” was not an elite court identity or a literary affect: it was a nationality that extended to most of the population regardless of its location, occupation, gender, and class (i.e., roughly to all who were Greek- speaking and Orthodox).

Biz and AirshipJungleman29, unless there is a very recent (2023 or 2024) high quality source, the intro chapter in the Routledge Handbook on Identity (2022) makes the current state of scholarship with respect to ethnicity clear. Bolding is mine

p.2

As Walter Pohl has recently discussed, in comparison to other groups like the Goths, the notion of Romanness as an ethnic identity remains controversial and needs much further elucidation.14

p. 10

In most modern scholarship, provincial labels (Macedonian, Paphlagonian, Cappadocian, etc.) are seen to have functioned as ethnicities in Byzantium. In Chapter 14, however, Anthony Kaldellis maintains that they were not ethnicities, ...

There is entire part about Being Byzantine in A Companion to Byzantium with multiple chapters. Insiders and Outsiders chapter deals with some of these issues.

Bringing all these sources together, here's my preliminary suggestion (need to check WP:CLOP, wording etc):

The identity of Byzantines is debated among scholars using a variety of approaches.[1] Throughout a thousand years, Byzantine society had a "changing yet unchanging" nature.[2] Historians usually consider the empire multi-ethnic,[3], where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity.[4] In the medieval period, the empire was more homogenous as its territory declined.[5] The imperial identity of Byzantines was Roman, Hellenic, and Christian Orthodox.[6]

This is longer than what I had suggested above, but it's because I found extra coverage in A Companion to Byzantium (2010). Given The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is from 2008, the more recent parts come from the intro chapter (1. Finding Byzantium) in Routledge Handbook of Identity (2022). The first sentences are vague, but they are supposed to be vague, since there are multiple ways to approach this. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're making progress. I'm trying to read more sources that I can to contribute (Pohl, Stiourathi). But wanted to drop this note for consideration.
The challenge with this is that it’s multiple questions at the centre of the debate and that we need to be cognisant of
  • what is an ethnos. Related to the topic but not this discussion: what is a nation?
  • Another important consideration is that ethnicity is a historiographic issue. According to Walter Pohl, we are oversimplifying historical realities and reinforcing circulator assumptions based on modern assumptions.
  • At the core of the debate is when did the people who followed the emperor, who were Chalcedonian-Orthodox Christians and Greek-speaking, transition into an ethnos? The consensus I'm identifying is that it happened by the 12th century at the latest.
    • Walter Pohl said defining a Roman ethnicity before the 12th century is dangerous. I’m still trying to understand why he thinks this.
    • Ioannis Stiourathi, who Pohl writes about in his introduction in Transformation of Romanness (2018), claims the ‘apparently enhanced cultural homogeneity (single lingua franca, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy)’ could be used to construct the image of the Rhomaioi as an ethnic group but the elites promoted loyalty to the state and emperor. That an ethnic image only appears in the historiography in the 12th century.
This also ties to Kaldellis' chapter about regional identities. Another way to express this debate is “Historians debate the cultural homogeneity that occurred, and when the Greek-speaking Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens that supported the emperor became an ethnic group, the Rhomaioi. Key being we don't make a claim when but add as many sources as possible for the reader to explore. Biz (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Insiders and Outsiders chapter p. 69
  2. ^ pp. 79-80 Insiders and Outsiders chapter, conclusions section
  3. ^ p.777 Language chapterp.10
  4. ^ p.10
  5. ^ p.5
  6. ^ p.7
Those quotes from the Handbook are illuminating; Biz, I believe that answers your question of "Is there even evidence, in 2025, that it is still the preponderant view that it once was? how about 2024? 2023? is there anyone in 2022, but no, not you Routledge, you don't count."
I like some of what you've done Bogazicili. I think the first sentences are too vague: the second sentence is unclear for the general reader, while the first could go for any section of the article, and are probably unnecessary if we convey scholarly debate in the later sentence. The last is also a bit confusing ("imperial identity?"), and the Handbook intro is clear that while these were primary, they were three "of many markers of identity". Taking that into account, something like

Scholars have traditionally viewed the empire as multi-ethnic,[1] with three primary identities: Roman, Hellenic, and Christian.[2] Other theories favour concepts of a unified Roman or Christian identity.[3] As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more ethnically homogenous.[4]

is maybe still too long, but I can accept it. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: this is missing one important aspect, the regional ethnicities. For example, there doesn't seem to be a Greek ethnicity, but regional ethnicities such as Macedonian etc (traditional view). Kaldellis argues for Greek-speaking Roman ethnicity.
And Roman, Hellenic, and Christian are not primary identities of the general population. See above quotes from Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium that most Byzantines did not identify as Greek. This is what Handbook of Identity says, p.3

“Roman” and “Greek” were only two of many markers of identity in Byzantium. It has been argued by some that the Byzantines’ religious identity as God’s “chosen people” who had super-ceded the Jews was far more important than their Roman or Greek identities. The increasing place of Christianity ...

And the handbook on identity talks about language and religion in terms of growing homogeneity, but asks if regional identities still mattered, p.5

In some ways, Byzantium’s territorial losses created greater homogenization in the reduced Roman state, which was left both more Greek-speaking and more Chalcedonian in its Christianity.42 ... Despite this seeming homogeneity of medieval Romans, however, regional differences continued to matter ... A major question is whether provincial identities themselves ...

I think some vague sentences about acknowledging the debate among scholars is fine, but I'm not going to press on that point.
Here's my revised suggestion based on your input:

Scholars have traditionally viewed the empire as multi-ethnic, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. Some of the main identities are Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. [Alternatively, a more narrow sentence about imperial identity which can be worded more strongly: The imperial identity of Byzantines was Roman, Hellenic, and Christian Orthodox] As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more homogenous in terms of language and religion.

Bogazicili (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, if you are still concerned about DUEness of provincial vs Roman identity, Kaldellis also talks about it in p.27 in The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium. Unlike the identity handbook, that is an overview source. Bogazicili (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ as above
  2. ^ Handbook intro pp. 2–7
  3. ^ as above + Handbook: Muthesius, p. 81, a short overview of the predominant theory in addition to Kaldellis and Riedel. See Biz's first quotation above
  4. ^ As above, + Treadgold 2002, p. 142. if needed
"More Homogeneous" is a euphemism. As time went on, it became more "homogeneously Greek". Your entire proposed sentence tries to avoid mentioning the G-word. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it became more homogenously Greek and Christian. We can add both of those in if you feel it is necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can say more Greek-speaking and Orthodox. I wasn't sure if "more Chalcedonian" can be paraphrased as more Orthodox. Or Greek-speaking and Christian. Bogazicili (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm not sayin Greek is because most people didn't identify as such (see above quotes). More than half of Greek-speakers also did not have Greek ancestry:

A Concise History of Byzantium p. 80:

The central part consisted of Greece, Thrace, and Anatolia, which later were to form the whole of the Byzantine Empire and were already becoming its core. Almost all the inhabitants of this region came to speak Greek by the end of the sixth century, though fewer than half of their ancestors had been Greeks. The only significant linguistic minorities to remain were Armenians in the far eastern sector, Latin speakers in the north, and some Illyrians (Albanians) in the west who had escaped Hellenization and Latinization by being isolated in the mountains between the two linguistic zones.

Bogazicili (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue here is that the text quoted above only deals as far as the sixth century AD, which only covers the first two-three centuries of the empire's 11 centuries of existence. The article should reflect upon the entire history of the empire, and not just focus on the first few centuries. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text 3

The empire projected three composite identities of its people: Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. Historians debate the extent of cultural homogeneity among these identities and when the Greek-speaking Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens who supported the emperor became an ethnic group, the Rhomaioi.

I think we have two sentences we can use that addresses all the discussion and aligns with the sources I've read so far. "Composite" is a word used by Pohl that I think captures the complexity without delving into the detail. The first sentence is a modification of the above that's being reused in the proposals. The second sentence I proposed this in my response above. No need to mention other ethnicities, if they existed beyond the early period, and the loss of territory being tied to homogenisation is dropped because they are not one-for-one, .Biz (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sentences are intelligible: an empire cannot project identities, and "Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens" doesn't make grammatical sense. Beyond that, the phrasing "when they became" suggests consensus on the matter of evolution that is not present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz: this is ignoring this part in Handbook on Identity: "In most modern scholarship, provincial labels (Macedonian, Paphlagonian, Cappadocian, etc.) are seen to have functioned as ethnicities in Byzantium"
That sentence clearly shows the modern consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "The empire projected...", we can switch to Wiley Companion for the dominant culture, p. 67

Mentioning Syriac Christianity draws forward one of the problems with the definition of “Byzantine,” for while the dominant culture of the Byzantine Empire was, for a thousand years, Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian, not all Byzantines conformed to this pattern ...

Updated suggestion:

Scholars usually view the empire as multi-ethnic, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. Greek-speaking Orthodox was the dominant culture in the empire. As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more homogenous.

I also removed the traditional part in the first sentence. The traditional definition was a "Greek empire", which western scholarship has moved away from. See above quotes in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium Bogazicili (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having read all of the above, some points that, I believe, appear to be agreed upon are 1) The empire was composed of various groups, especially in its earlier period, but 2) it became more homogenous, as it lost territories in the middle ages (I think, most sources put that in the 7th century onwards with the loss of Africa and the Levant), 3) Greek-speaking Orthodox was its dominant culture and populace, and 4) provincial identifications were also important for the inhabitants, in addition to the emperial Rhomaios identity.

I'm avoiding the "provincial identification served as ethnicities", because it appears to be more confusing than helpful for the average reader, and perhaps opens a discourse that is a bit undue here. When we think of "other ethnic groups", we may imagine Armenians, Slavs, Arabs etc. (people representing a minority language / culture). Regional identities are important even in modern countries, but to which extent we and the Byzantines imagine/ed them as "ethnicities" and what an ethnicity even means in the middle ages, is a question that we, and scholarship, might not have one clear answer for all to agree upon now.

If the definition of certain terms, like "ethnicity", causes disagreements, we may reach a consensus wording without these words, like in my suggestion above. Piccco (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality issues

I'm afraid I find this article still falling far short of what I'd consider FA quality, in its prose and in the way it's summarizing content. I realize that creating summaries of complex scholarly findings at the super-high level required by this article is among the hardest things that Wikipedians can attempt, so well, it's no disgrace to have failed, but still, this article is failing. What I'm seeing is a crude mixture of statements that are super-generic (sometimes to the point of being near-vacuous), statements that are oddly over-specific, and – most disconcertingly – statements that hint at the existence of specific detail without actually telling us what those details are, making the whole statement useless to the reader – statements of the form "there were some changes in X and they had an effect on Y", leaving the reader wondering just what changes and what effects are meant. If we don't have the time to explain that, why mention it at all?

  • Looking at the "cuisine" section. It starts out with Feasting was a major part of Byzantine culture – So, they liked feasts, really? Was there ever a human culture that didn't do feasts? Then it goes on: … and included the use of clean tables and forks. – Really? Did other cultures make it a habit to eat from dirty tables instead? – Modern Italian standards of gastronomy are likely to have been influenced by this era. This is one of those oddly over-specific ones. But what was that influence; which features of modern gastronomy is this talking about – Clean tables? Are those somehow specific to Italian gastronomy as opposed to others? It doesn't help that this sentence then has a footnote linking to three different sources, making verification hard. Did all of them make that point about Italian gastronomy? (The one of them I could access online didn't.) And why is this odd factoid important enough to be in this super-short summary, which so many other things have been stripped from? It also doesn't help that all of this isn't even talking about cuisine proper – "cuisine" means the foods you cook, not the furniture you eat them from.
    I seem to remember the rest of the section was once written around an attempted structure of presenting (a) things that persisted into Byzantine cuisine from ancient times, (b) things that were new in Byzantine times, and (c) things that survived from Byzantine into modern cuisine, a structure that was poorly executed but originally sensible in principle. This has now gone through multiple rounds of (dis)improvement, which caused that originally useful structure to somehow get lost.
  • Looking at the "governance" section. The patriarch inaugurated emperors from 457 onwards, while the crowds of Constantinople proclaimed their support, thus legitimising their rule. This sentence fails to establish its own topic and that of the section properly. The section is not about the patriarch; it's about the emperors, more specifically, about the way new emperors had their legitimacy publicly manifested. This is an example of a sentence that really, really ought to be stated in the passive voice; that's what the passive is for. (Maybe some copyeditor went by a mistaken maxim of "avoid passive voice at all costs"; this is exactly where you shouldn't do that.) A sentence later, it goes on: The reign of Phocas (r. 602–610) was the first military coup after the 3rd century, and he was one of 43 emperors violently removed from power. That's one of those over-specific ones, again. So, what is that statement about Phocas meant to show, exactly? That military coups were overall rare? That they were overall frequent? That the three centuries without military coups before Phocas were somehow exceptional? Or that they were more or less representative of the empire's history? How many military coups per century do we get on average, at a total count of 43? Or is somebody here making a distinction between military coups (happening only every three centuries or so) and other ways of violently removing an emperor (happening more often)? During this time, for only 30 of the 843 years were the reigning emperors unrelated by blood or kinship – this sentence is actually taken from a source in a way that comes dangerously close to overly close paraphrasing, and yet it manages to mangle the meaning of the original. "unrelated" to whom? Unrelated to all the other emperors? No, of course, what the original says is "unrelated to their predecessors". This needs to be added back in. But most crucially, what needs to be inserted (or reinserted) is the whole context of this statement in the source, which is about describing how emperial power was, in principle and in theory, not meant to be hereditary, which is probably the crucial difference between Roman/Byzantine monarchy and medieval western monarchies. Throughout this whole section, the actual point of the high-level summary has been lost among all the over-specific detail listed.
  • Looking at the "pre-518" section. There's a discussion of Diocletian's tetrarchy, and then: Diocletian's reforms significantly altered governmental structure, reach and taxation, and these reforms had the effect of downgrading the first capital, Rome.. What does this mean? Are the "reforms" alluded to here just the introduction of the tetrarchy mentioned earlier, or is the sentence meant to introduce a discussion of some additional reforms? And what is "governmental structure, reach and taxation"? I can understand what "governmental structure" might be, but what is "governmental reach"? (Or is it just "reach" alone, without "governmental"?) And what is "governmental taxation" – is there some other taxation that's not "governmental"? – Slightly further on: Rome was further from the important eastern provinces and in a less strategically important location; it was not esteemed by the "soldier-emperors" who ruled from the frontiers or by the empire's population who, having been granted citizenship, considered themselves to be Roman. That's both grammatically weak (having two non-defining relative clauses marked like defining ones) and unclear – why would "considering oneself Roman" mean that you wouldn't "esteem" Rome? Again, this sentence, like so many others, has a jumble of multiple references in a footnote, not all of which support this content. The first one, "Greatrex 2008, p. 335" (which, incidentally, seems to be a typo for "p. 235"; same for multiple other "Greatrex" refs with page numbers in the 300s) certainly contains nothing about this lack of esteem for Rome. These are serious verification fails. It's ok to have combined footnotes with multiple refs for paragra″phs if all the contents of the paragraph are really high-level summary of something all the references agree about, but not if there are these highly specific interpretative statements that stand out from a paragraph; for these you really need to cite the one ref that supports them.

These are just a few examples and by no means exhaustive; issues of this type pervade the whole text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise; I can only reply for the second example of the final bullet point, as I wrote that. Thanks for noticing the three errors with Greatrex's page numbers in that paragraph. My formal grammar learning having been somewhat ad-hoc, I'm not sure if "having two non-defining relative clauses marked like defining ones" makes a sentence "grammatically weak"—perhaps John can weigh in? I appreciate your perceived lack of clarity and will try to resolve that.
On the "serious verification fails", Greatrex 2008, p. 235 verifies most of the following: "Constantine I (r. 306–337) consolidated complete power in 324. Over the next six years, he rebuilt the city of Byzantium as a new capital, renaming it Constantinople.", with Treadgold 1997, pp. 39–40. explicitly stating that the reconstruction of Byzantium began in 324, which Greatrex is unfortunately non-explicit on. Kaldellis 2023, pp. 16–20 verifies the rest of the cited material. The last sentence of your paragraph above outlines to be your own preferred citation style, but I would personally consider combined footnotes all verifying the same high-level summary to be redundant and defeating the point of combined footnotes. Hope that helps and apologies that I cannot reply for more of the material, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may well be right that combined footnotes with all refs supporting the same high-level summary may seem redundant, but the converse is still a problem. If you have multiple different statements of different provenance in the text, and then you put a single footnote after one sentence with multiple refs in it, each of which supports some part of the preceding text but not others, that definitely becomes a problem. When a reader comes across a particular statement in a sentence, especially if it's a highly specific, surprising claim or a statement that amounts to interpretative opinion, and then goes to the footnote immediately following that sentence, then they are definitely entitled to expect that every reference in that footnote supports that exact claim the footnote is visibly attached to. Readers mustn't be left having to sieve through four or five refs to find the one bit that actually supports what they came to verify. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a small factual nitpick: the current text explicitly claims that Constantine himself renamed Byzantium to Constantinople. Is that backed by the sources? In a different article, Names of Istanbul, we seem to be saying that the new name only came into official use under his successors and that under Constantine himself it was just "New Rome" (but the sourcing in that article is not particularly strong; just want to make certain we're good with the sources here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The only thing a footnote is supposed to do is verify the statements that precede it. There is no demand that "a highly specific, surprising claim" (and how is an editor supposed to determine what that is?) must be verified by all the references in the footnote. This is the case in academic scholarship or on Wikipedia. Take Greatrex 2008: on page 236, we find a paragraph supported by a bundled footnote containing nine separate sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you must cite WP:CITE: the guideline clearly demands that footnotes must be placed in a way that "it's clear which source supports which part of the text" (which, really, is so obvious a demand that it shouldn't even be necessary to state it in a guideline.) That's exactly what these footnotes fail to do. (But thanks for cleaning up the one on the attitudes towards old Rome [7]; that's just how these cases ought to be fixed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback @Future Perfect at Sunrise. I will respond to each point as a separate comment in case we need to discuss it further. Once agreed, I can resolve or someone else can attempt to. I've got a capacity issue right now so just trying to respond to each of your points may be staggered.
1. Cuisine. According to Bryer, Anthony. "Food, Wine, and Feasting". In Cormack (2008) which is the The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies and which was originally attached to this statement p. 673 says "Feasting was an essential cultural element of Byzantium".
According to Ash, John (1995). A Byzantine Journey. p244, here is a full transsciption which partially answers your question:
Other elements of Byzantine cuisine reached the West more directly. From the sixth century to the eleventh, southern Italy was a Byzantine province, and from the late eleventh until the fall of the empire there was close contact between Byzantium and the Italian maritime republics. In the late fourteenth century, Byzantine scholars began to abandon the dying empire and settle in Italy, especially in Florence, where their knowledge of Plato and platonism was highly prized. It was in Florence that George Gemistus Plethon, the last significant Byzantine philosopher, enjoyed his greatest public success. There were numerous sophisticated gastronomes among these émigrés; and their arrival gave a powerful impetus to the efflorescence of Florentine cuisine that began about this time. Giuliano Bugialli in The Fine Art of Italian Cooking even seems to imply that the practice of dressing salads with oil and vinegar was introduced from Byzantium, and caviar is referred to in fifteenth-century Florentine texts as a food of which the Greeks were especially fond. In a sense Byzantine influence on Italian cookery was a form of restitution, for it was in Constantinople rather than strife-torn Italy that Roman traditions of high gastronomy best survived. It is also probable that Byzantium gave the Italians lessons in table manners. The aristocrats of Constantinople were the first people of medieval Europe to use clean table linen and forks—refinements that the scandalized crusaders considered sure signs of moral degeneracy. Accounts of (continuing to the next page 245) upper-class dinner parties of the twelfth century reveal a “polite society” far in advance of anything in the West. Dining rooms were decorated with mosaics and frescoes (often of a mildly erotic nature), with ceramic tiles, carpets and stucco sculpture. In addition, some would have contained display cases for the host’s collection of objets d’art. The Roman habit of reclining on couches had been abandoned during the course of the tenth century, and the guests, who might be as many as forty in number, were seated around circular or rectangular tables that were variously inlaid with marble, gold, silver and ivory. Such parties were scenes for gossip and intrigue (against which Byzantine moralists issued stern warnings), but they were also occasions for the serious discussion of literature, philosophy and scripture, and the performance of new literary and musical works. These elegant symposia harked back consciously to Hellenistic Alexandria, yet at the same time they seem to anticipate the salons of eighteenth-century Paris. But it is the imperial banquets that took place in the Great Palace that haunt the imagination by their magnificence and strangeness.
According to Decker, Michael. "Everyday Technologies" In Cormack, Haldon & Jeffreys (2008), also in the The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies pp. 492–502 is referencing the entire chapter, but it discusses Domestic Technology, p496 "Among the upper classes, metal tableware was relatively common from the Roman period onward (Boger 1983) with examples of late antique metal forks and spoons surviving (Millikin 1957). Two-tined metal forks are known from Persia, but table forks seldom appear in literary or material contexts, although their illustration in wall-paintings at Karanlik Kilise in Cappadocia evidences their continued favour among the elite (de Jerphanion 1938: 244–8). It is generally supposed that the Byzantines passed the fork to the West via their possessions in south Italy and Venice." with the rest of this section about material science, and later water supply and sanitation,
To answer your questions now that we have a common reference. (Apologies if I missed one, it was hard to keep up.)
  • So, they liked feasts, really? Was there ever a human culture that didn't do feasts? Yep, that's what Anthony Bryer states what is referred to often as WP:RS. Is this a problem?
  • and included the use of clean tables and forks. – Really? That's what John Ash, the amateur historian says "the aristocrats of Constantinople were the first people of medieval Europe to use clean table linen and forks" with Decker supporting the claim about forks. Is this still a problem?
  • Gastronomy: now that you can see John Ash entirely I hope you understand where this statement comes from. Only he specifically calls this out and with the copy edit work splitting the sentences, it would be appropriate now to move this source to support this sentence alone. I'm open to suggestion on how we better reword this.
  • And why is this odd factoid important enough to be in this super-short summary, which so many other things have been stripped from? and I seem to remember the rest of the section was once written around an attempted structure of presenting (a) things that persisted into Byzantine cuisine from ancient times, (b) things that were new in Byzantine times, and (c) things that survived from Byzantine into modern cuisine, a structure that was poorly executed but originally sensible in principle. This has now gone through multiple rounds of (dis)improvement, which caused that originally useful structure to somehow get lost. This prose review rewrite has been aggressive with the best intentions to make this a better article. However, this is one area that I agree needs to be added back. Better executed, of course.
  • It also doesn't help that all of this isn't even talking about cuisine proper – "cuisine" means the foods you cook, not the furniture you eat them from. Good call. This was already there and likely influenced from the main article. Is gastronomy really a better replacement or do you have another suggestion?
Biz (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just about that detail: the issue with the "clean tables" was that the article missed the word "linen" from the source? Using clean tables and using clean table linen are not quite the same thing. Mentioning forks makes some sense, I guess. I'm not sure "standards of gastronomy" is a very good way of summarizing all that stuff Ash describes. BTW, if you really want coverage of the material aspects of dining habits, I have the feeling the shift from reclining on couches to sitting at tables might actually be a more important point to cover than some of the others, including the table linen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I can take another look at this once I finish the readings and related prose we need for Identity. Biz (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Governance. You are correct but I would go further: the entire Governance section requires revision. Although I have conducted more research on this topic than any other section, in its current form it is stillborn. Initially, my intent was to outline the role of the emperor—his authority, power transitions, and legal position within the empire. One critical issue was the removal of the opening sentence.
When this was removed, it disrupted the section’s balance and clarity. Modern WP:RS dedicated to the "Byzantine" emperor are hard to come by however my inclusion of modern scholarship (ie, last 40 years) which treats the institution as the same (the Roman emperor, as how we do at List of Roman emperors) was deemed inappropriate by Airship. There was also a note that expanded on the "difficult to define". This is part of what I regard as the neutrality minefield of this article that makes it hard to just get it done right. The three sources I originally referenced for the first sentence are below which I think are relevant and if you agree then we can get back to the meat of this section:
Eck, Werner (2016). "The Emperor, the Law and Imperial Administration". In DuPlessis, Paul J.; Tuori, Kaius; Ando, Clifford (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society p.108: states in it's conclusion
  • The emperors and the ocia that developed around the emperors emerged more and more as the centre of the whole administration of the Empire, whence many things were directed and guided. The hierarchical structure of the administration in late Antiquity emerged step by step out of these countless decision-making processes (Eich 2005).
Christoforou, Panayiotis (31 July 2023). "A History of the Roman Emperor". Imagining the Roman Emperor: Perceptions of Rulers in the High Empire. Cambridge, p.28
  • The power of the Roman emperor is notoriously difficult to define. In modern scholarship, there has been a reticence in describing the enormous discretionary and invasive power of the emperor in monarchic or ‘kingly’ terms. The reality of the emperor’s power was such that he could do what he thought was necessary, creating the paradox of autocratic power that could not be seen to be monarchic.96 This is most readily observable in the titles, names, and descriptors of power ascribed to the emperorship, which were numerous and of varying importance. Given that emperors had names, titles, and offices that were not necessarily coterminous with their reigns, no specific title could in fact encompass his power and duties. The fascinating nature of the emperor’s power – outside the constraints of <continues on page 29> legality and the Roman constitution and yet ideologically informed and supported by them – has only heightened its multiplicity. This multiplicity has posed a challenge to scholarly attempts to under-stand the position from the early principate and beyond, at least in terms of a simple explanation about its constitutional and extraconstitutional make-up. For instance, Theodor Mommsen argued that every principate began and died with each princeps, stating that there was no continuity.98 In the legal and constitutional framework of Mommsen’s Römisches Staatsrecht, the emperor was much the same as another magistrate, imbued with imperium and with a temporal limit (i.e. the death of the emperor). In contradistinction to a magistracy, though, the emperorship did not have a single title under which its duties and powers could be summarised, as ‘consul’ or ‘praetor’ did.
Tuori, Kaius (2016). The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication. Oxford p.11
  • The functioning of the emperor as judge may be seen as a central component in the administrative and ideological foundation of the connection between the emperor and thepeople.43The role of the emperor has partly been such an enigma to legal historians because it does not conform to modern expectations of the separation of powers into executive, legislative, and adjudicative branches. The fact that the emperor both adjudicated and made law, with legal interpretation inseparable from actual transformation through precedent, has made the legal aspect of the Principate a conceptual mineeld. Confusingly enough, the emperor was simultaneously above the law, within the law, and the law itself.Thus, questions regarding sovereignty and executive privilege, as well as the issue of exceptions and exceptionality, are central to the understanding of emperors and law. One should not make the mistake of drawing a rigid division between the application of law and its creation; for all its virtues, ancient Rome did not subscribe to the modern division
So, what is that statement about Phocas meant to show, exactly? That military coups were overall rare? That they were overall frequent? That the three centuries without military coups before Phocas were somehow exceptional? Or that they were more or less representative of the empire's history? How many military coups per century do we get on average, at a total count of 43? Or is somebody here making a distinction between military coups (happening only every three centuries or so) and other ways of violently removing an emperor (happening more often)?
  • It was to show that coups were rare between the 3-7th centuries, and then they became more frequent (If it helps, we can say Kaldellis claims this aligns with when the military was stationed closer to the capital). Also that yes, this was a feature of the empire that continued on for many centuries. To my original intent: it shows how power transitioned. And then this leads into, when this didn't happen, to a planned succession and which dovetails to your suggestion which I really like. Absolutely we need to focus on how the emperorship was not hereditary. But based on an earlier discussion in Talk, it seems there was consensus to remove this.
During this time, for only 30 of the 843 years were the reigning emperors unrelated by blood or kinship – this sentence is actually taken from a source in a way that comes dangerously close to overly close paraphrasing, and yet it manages to mangle the meaning of the original. "unrelated" to whom? Unrelated to all the other emperors? No, of course, what the original says is "unrelated to their predecessors". This needs to be added back in. But most crucially, what needs to be inserted (or reinserted) is the whole context of this statement in the source, which is about describing how emperial power was, in principle and in theory, not meant to be hereditary, which is probably the crucial difference between Roman/Byzantine monarchy and medieval western monarchies. Throughout this whole section, the actual point of the high-level summary has been lost among all the over-specific detail listed.
  • Further to your fantastic suggestion, I believe this section should clearly outline the evolution of imperial power (or put into a separate section), the decline of traditional institutions like the Senate (already mentioned) and Consulship (not mentioned, abolished by Justinian), and the increasing centralisation of authority under the emperor (that culminated with Leo's reforms). Also, the evolution of the administrative divisions and how they interplay with local governance (already there but could be tweaked, maybe more sources). If we can get some consensus on how we approach this section that would be most helpful.
Biz (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Diocletian's reforms significantly altered governmental structure, reach and taxation, and these reforms had the effect of downgrading the first capital, Rome."
What does this mean? Are the "reforms" alluded to here just the introduction of the tetrarchy mentioned earlier, or is the sentence meant to introduce a discussion of some additional reforms? And what is "governmental structure, reach and taxation"? I can understand what "governmental structure" might be, but what is "governmental reach"? (Or is it just "reach" alone, without "governmental"?) And what is "governmental taxation" – is there some other taxation that's not "governmental"?
  • It means he restructured the very administration of the empire, made the state most intrusive into the private lives of family (as seen with with slavery), and changed the nature of taxation and related where Rome no longer received the one way payment from its colonies and became a subject region itself. The sources are quoted below and will answer your questions. If you have a better way to word this, by all means be my guest!
Kaldellis 2023
  • pp. 20–21 "Conversely, in this more equal Roman empire, there was no reason for Italy or even Rome itself to be treated as special. Diocletian had imposed taxes on italy and subordinated it to regular provincial administration...Diocletian, who largely avoided Rome during his reign, ceased issuing coins that hailed Eternal Rome in the legend, issuing a coin throughout the empire that hailed the Spirit of the Roman People"
  • 34 "The new Roman empire that emerged from the reforms of Diocletian inaugurated an era of "big government. In the past, emperors demanded a set of tribute from each province or city, and local authorities, usually the city councils under loose supervision by imperial officials, allocated the tax burden. The governors toured the provinces with a small staff to prevent major problems and resolve disputes. The central government was essentially a skeleton staff. But that model came under strain as the defensive needs of the empire mounted after the second century...the inflationary dams burst...it made more sense to extract resources in kind. This required a large administrative apparatus, which in turn, cost more in overhead. These problems were tackled by Diocletian, who was the founder of the new empire and gave it the form that survived until the seventh century. He set info motion a more rational, uniform, efficient and even equitable system of national taxation, dispensing with the distinction between Roman conquerors in Italy and conquered non-Romans in the provinces. His system terminated the transfer of wealth from east to west and made the eastern empire a fiscally integral and potentially autonomous unit.""
Treadgold 1997, pp. 39, 45, 85;
  • p39: Diocletian realized that the best way of maximizing receipts while minimizing economic dislocation was to standardize the taxes and requisitions according to his subjects’ ability to pay. Collecting taxes or requisitions that fell equally on each man, household, or measure of land had the obvious disadvantage that some men and households could afford to pay much more than others, and some land was far more productive than other land. Uniform rates that the rich could pay easily would ruin the poor, and rates that the poor could pay would be absurdly low for the rich and yield little revenue. Yet any assessment of land and other property according to their monetary value would rapidly become obsolete as the coinage continued to inflate.
  • 45. In the process of making his reforms, Diocletian reduced Italy and the city of Rome virtually to provincial status and subjected both the West and the East to the same administrative system. The Roman senate’s remaining authority nearly disappeared, and senators became ineligible for all but a few governorships and other offices. Although the senators retained their wealth and personal privileges, most of the real power in the vast new machinery of government belonged to newcomers, many of them soldiers installed by the soldier-emperors. Now the empire’s real capitals were simply wherever the emperors happened to be at the time, and many of their officials followed them on their travels.
  • 85-86 The refoundation of the Roman Empire was for the most part the work of Diocletian, a ruler with a better understanding of statecraft than Constantine. Without Diocletian’s reforms, Constantine’s career would hardly have been possible. Yet Constantine, whether through inspiration, good fortune, or misfortune, made some changes that were more lasting than his predecessor’s. His centralization of Diocletian’s army and administration, combined with his careless and extravagant management, set the pattern for years to come. Constantine’s adoption of Christianity began a sweeping and permanent transformation of all of society. And his refoundation and promotion of the town of Byzantium soon brought changes that can justify our calling the eastern empire Byzantine.
Rotman 2022, pp. 41–43;
  • Page 36 as intro: The dynamics of power relations within the Roman society between public and private, which slavery faciliated, changed dramatically in the late Roman Emopire due to two key reforms: the adoption of Christianity by Constantine and the reform in the status of private property. Slavery dependended on the definition of of what was private and public and the way it functioned in Roman society, and influenced the dynamics between private and public power in the Empire
  • on page 38 there is a new heading "Private and Public Notions of Property" which continues until the conclusion on page 43
  • P40 The new language that Christianity introduced about slavery and its innovative views onownership had concrete
  • p41 expression following the reforms that the emperor Diocletian (284-305) introduced to the fiscal system on landed property. Diocletians reforms subjugated all landed property to the public authority and made it liable to tax. No private property henceforth existed independently of state authority...major changes occurred in the relationship between the enslaving proprietor and enslaved human property, which enabled the intervention of the emperor's authority in the private relationship between enslaver and enslaved"
  • The rest of the cited pages explains how the father of the family lost complete control over slaves and children, a practice since ancient Rome, expanding more about the concept of private property and how slaves gained a new civil status and about further laws around castration
Greatrex 2008, pp. 234–235.
  • p234 Despite the multiplicity of emperors, the empire remained united. Laws issued by one emperor were implemented throughout the empire (Jones 1964: 41; Carrié and Rousselle 1999:148). The reign of Diocletian and his colleagues brought great change to the administration of the empire: provinces were reduced in size, thereby approximately doubling their number, while the number of soldiers was increased. Partly as a result of the multiplication of emperors, and partly in an eort to ensure a sucient quantity of supplies for the enlarged army, the apparatus of government
  • p235 grew. The focus on the military also led to a denitive separation of military and civilian oces (Jones 1964:37–60, Campbell 2005:120–6, Carrié and Rouselle 1999:160–90, Garnsey and Humfress 2001: 36–41). Important reforms were likewise introduced at various stages to the manner in which taxes were raised, culminating in the establishment of the ‘indiction’ cycle in 312, a fteen-year-long period during which the amount due (the indiction) would remain constant; so familiar did this rhythm become over the years that the unit was soon taken up as a means of dating (Jones 1964: 61–70; Carrié 1994; Carrié and Rouselle 1999:190–207).
Biz (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors

Footnote 17 (for the sentence about Diocletian's reforms pointed out in the section above) currently reads Kaldellis 2023, pp. 20–21, 34; Treadgold 1997, pp. 39, 45, 85; Rotman 2022, p. 234–235; Greatrex 2008. Here, Greatrex is missing its page number. Rotman's "234-235" can't be correct because that book only has 150 pages, but "234-235" might very well be correct for Greatrex (that seems to be the place in his chapter where he discussed late Roman reforms). I wonder if one of Treadgold's "39, 45, 85" might in turn actually be the one for Rotman. Can somebody check please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like this was a fairly simple template error. Somebody please check my fix [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked it per the above page numbers and I've decided it's best to expand it into two sentence as its deserving given the scope. If this is not an improvement, please edit: I hope my responsive above helps you be across the scholarship. [9] Biz (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire
No tags for this post.