Talk:Byzantine Empire

The term “Byzantine” should no longer be used by Wikipedia

The term "Byzantine" is basically a derogatory term for the Eastern Roman Empire and shouldn't be used. Whether it's on an article description, or just for general usage in a page. While even though they were Romans it would be better to use Eastern Roman to show they were Romans but also ethnicity, and culturally different. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We go by what the sources think is the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, we can point to how the world’s foremost proponent against “Byzantium” put that word in the title of his recent magnum opus. Or when newly-created accounts start titling themselves "EasternRomanHistory435". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While disruptively changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" 40+ times with no explanation, discussion, or consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the Eastern Roman Empire constitutes enough evidence to state my point. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a comment is proof enough for me that ByzantineHistory435 is WP:NOTHERE.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the user name, this is obviously just trolling. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to add more names?

I understand that although the byzantine empire is a totally inaccurate name, it is the common name so it has to be used but when I try to add other names mainly the roman empire or Romanía It gets reverted? Daemonofthered (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everything one knows about something has to be in the infobox, which is meant to display key facts at a glance for a general audience per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Less is more. With that in mind, the consensus hammered out by contributors on this talk page has been not to add more names. They're in the body in any case. Remsense诉 12:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the key point is MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which specifies that alternative names should a) be significant in English use and b) redirect to the article. Roman Empire and Romania obviously do neither. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Doy, I'm dumb.) Remsense诉 12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand why Roman Empire can’t be used, but Romanía (with the í, instead of the regular i in Romania the country) is becoming a more popular term for the byzantine empire in online historical communities such as reddit. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That matters precisely zero. We write articles based on what appears in reliable sources, not Reddit. The current emphasis reflects that in English-language RS. Also, those names are mentioned, but just, yknow, in the actual article. People obsess with the lead sentences and infobox as if there isn't tens of thousands of actually interesting words. Remsense诉 17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Kaldellis is probably the most well known Byzantine historian today and he often refers to it as Romanía in his books. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kalldellis (2023) is probably one of my favorite narrative histories. However, it's one book among many (though the most recent omnibus history). He's still known by his peers as being a little insistent about it. Maybe it'll be a more common name for the general public in 10 or 30 years, but these things don't turn on a dime. Remsense诉 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood Daemonofthered (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

As part of the FAR of this article, its become apparent there is lot of missing content so the article does not have the comprehensiveness it needs to have. As a case in point, I've just created a new section "army" and am planning to create "navy" next. Clothing and Geography are articles that exist and that the Roman Empire article covers, but is also is missing. I wanted to ask what else is missing from this article so we can add it to the list Biz (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the entirety of the army section referenced to two sources? That is nowhere near FA standards (see criterion 1c), and will have to be rewritten again. Let's focus on making sure our additions are of suitable quality, rather than worrying about what isn't there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought Haldon and Kaldellis covered the issues enough to enable neutral coverage for all perspectives. Criterion 1c is qualitative not quantitative. Treadgold's 1990s work and Cambridge's 2019 narrative history I could review. But as I'm so far off, to meet the standard, what should I also be including? Biz (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Literally anything high-quality—but make sure that what you're writing is verified by the text. Take the following sentence: "Foreign mercenaries also increasingly became employed, including the better-known Tagma unit, the Varangian Guard, that guarded the emperor." Does the cited source, Haldon p. 556, say that the Varangians guarded the emperor? Does it say that they were a "Tagma [sic] unit"? Does it even say that they were called "the Varangian Guard"? I understand this level of prose and sourcing quality may be difficult to achieve, but they are the FA standards. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend combining "army" and "navy" in one "military" section; otherwise there will be a lot of duplication when specifying time periods. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Re sourcing: got it. My approach has always been creative expression to avoid CLOP, and sources for key facts, with multiple sources if controversial. But the reason I'm drawn to this project is epistemology, and I'm seeing very much the importance of what you are saying. So will see what I can do. (Also, Tagma is singular; yes most sources called it a guard; I'll find a new source that explicitly explains these facts.)

Re the Navy.: I'll see what I can do. I think it will be a paragraph and since it has it's own main article, it's justified. But will first focus on the army rewrite and see if I can reduce the word out which is the main reason I separated it. Biz (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Which edition of Treadgold are you using? As far as I can see, none were published in 2002. Please take care when "correcting" the bibliography's sources, because ones that are use will break (you may wish to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors if you haven't already). While we're here, could you also take care to make sure page numbers are formatted—p. for a single page, pp. for multiple? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Using Kindle. I'll use 1997. Will correct with PP. And wondering, can we just use sfnm and avoid sfn? sfnm works for singular references, allows for consistency, reduce learning curve for newer editors, makes it easy to add more source in future. Biz (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing with sfnm is that it's a massive pain with multiple-author sources. I wonder, is anyone willing to do the grunt work and convert the collected-edition sources into {{harvc}}s? Bit of a faff, but it'll significantly improve the reference layout. Otherwise I'll do that after I've finished the History section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

On a similar note, I don't like the "12th-century renaissance" section at all. It's part of the arts section, which I am gradually rewriting, but the whole section seems overblown and awkwardly placed: "art, music architecture, literature, (?) 12-century Renaissance". It looks like it should be incorporated in the economy section (where the effect is more covered), and mentioned in the visual arts section where appropriate.

Also, iconoclasm is a bit awkward as well. Mentioned in the history section, and has its own small section. A rewritten art section would also probably include it. Not sure if the dedicated section should be removed or something else. – Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the time when Greco-Roman knowledge, including Justinians's code transferred to the West so there is a lot that could be written here. Not sure where to put it, but not economy -- but feel free to move somewhere and we will get to it. Perhaps rename it as renaissance and move it in legacy.

The dispute over iconoclasm is a huge topic that impacts art and religion but also relations with western Europe. I don't see an issue if you separately cover it in arts, it's covered in history, and the existing section in religion remains. Kaldellis (2023) went into over-drive to cover Church controversies, not sure if I can stomach reading that again but there's plenty to cover. Biz (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not feel that you have to retain any of these sections. As I recall, most were created when the FAR began, to reduce the overreliance on the "History" section (see this comment above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am half-considering the benefits of a radically different layout: one where the top-level headings are the history time-periods, and developments in military/arts/religion are made subsections. I think that might help the awkwardness/disjointedness of some sections, but it would mean a complete overhaul and might be a little odd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to give a bit more detail on your layout ideas, but I am highly sympathetic the premise. The current structure is a mess; the Science and medicine sections mix philosophy and science probably more than is warranted (and there's only a single sentence on medicine). The Daily life section is also strange, with only two (rather brief) subsections. Religion might work better as a subsection. The Roman Empire article seems to have a much better structure. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The value of this approach is that it will likely reduce the word count as sub-headings can be stricter (ie, with military, it talks about political and financial conditions that affected it which may double up in the history narration).

From an experience point of view, having sections on topics that are stand alone in explaining things in one narrative is probably more useful and and less disjointed to a reader. Search engines and AI ingesting this article may appreciate more the additional high level time dimension, especially if time is not segmemented in a section clearly.

From a priorities point of view, it's no longer word count. We can always assess this later when FAR is not risking the star removal as it is now and we are left with a reviewed article to see how it flows and/or doubles up. Easier to edit down and segment later, what's hard is the validation, research and rewrite/expansion now, let's solve the hard first. Biz (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely something to think about later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

But also increasingly becoming more prominent in my thinking. There's a reason all the narrative histories are chonrological rather than thematic—with such a long timespan, there will inevitably be time jumps in individual sections. Reorganising the whole article around the time periods will, I think, allow both better flow and greater specialist detail. After I've finished with the history section, I think I'll begin drafting an alternative layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely: narrative history is a specific style. There are plenty more graduate level books that have chapters or dedicated books on specific themes. Kaldellis actually did a podcast explaining this is partially what inspired him, its been so long since someone has put it all together. Too many specialists but as I’m finding, still not enough.

Regardless, I’m impressed with how middle ages does it so open to this. It will inspire future work in time periods, just like how the last 30 years we’ve seen scholarship in diplomacy, the military, law, slavery, language, women. For example, this one synopsium in 1990 is the only work on diplomacy; Kaegi pioneered military that Treadgold, Haldon and Pryor have built on; the awareness of how woeful our understanding of law and women is even more apparent. Haldon seems to be focussed on climate now, a theme Kaldellis is aware the next narrative history will need to cover to update our understanding. By doing time periods future FAR’s will have focus filling those gaps with the latest scholarship. It may be worth documenting the historians by era or theme for future editors. Biz (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

You may have seen I've done some work recently on Governance, Military (a new section) and Diplomacy following the review on Society I did six months ago. As much as I enjoy this, I will not be able to continue at a similar pace for what has been asked. This is a call for help for additional reviewers as otherwise the article will lose its feature article status, which will be a shame as it's the longest running Feature Article on Wikipedia.

We need people to review the following sections:

• Law
• Flags and insignia
• economy
• Daily life
• science and medicine
• Religion
• Legacy

The article could also do with new sections around demography, clothing and the Relationship with Western Christendom. There's main articles floating around on these topics.

Anyone that can help with issues previously raised would also be of great help;

• Ensure all the issues listed in SandyGeorgia's comments are addressed
• Ensure all the images are sourced as per here

I've started reviewing the scholarship for Law (though I have completed a big piece of research on Nomos empsychos); @AirshipJungleman29 is knee deep on rewriting/reviewing the rest of history; and @Aza24 is taking point on Arts.

Once all the above is done we are going to take a fresh look at the article and condense it further. At minimum we can reduce some sections, some of which have been expanded and completely rewritten, by moving that work into the main articles. Biz (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Biz, I've been following your exemplary work here closely. We could ask some others about some of these remaining sections, I can think of at least two people for the Religion and Science ones. A new user just nominated Poverty in ancient Rome to FAC, perhaps they could look at the economy section here. I'm thinking Iazyges or Borsaka could help out as well. Aza24 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, Graearms (the editor I alluded to above) has agreed to take a look at the Economy section. Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And now Jenhawk777 has agreed to rewrite the religion section! Although they may be delayed a bit, that shouldn't be an issue (no rush!). – Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rework of Religion section

Hello! Thank you for the invite. I have copied the original religion section to my sandbox and will be working there. Feel free to visit and kibbitz. I will bring the completed section here before publishing. I am organizing it chronologically rather than topically, but in doing so, that means covering from the first century to 1453. I will try to keep it as concise as possible. There will be plenty of citations (since I always do) using sfn to the highest quality sources (which will be, of course, verifiable). I will do my best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jenhawk777! Anthony Kaldellis spends an inordinate amount of text covering church controversies in his 2023 history The New Roman Empire. We're using Kaldellis as a baseline for the entire article review as it's the latest scholarship, which is not to say he is correct, but on this topic I know he has a lot to say and that is not covered in other narrative histories. Biz (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, church controversies are largely responsible for the formation of the Eastern churches. I think that's pretty much undisputed. Aza24, and Biz, and anyone else interested, please go to User:Jenhawk777/sandbox, (please skip over the beginnings of the source list) and please read and comment on what is there under the Religion section heading.

I did not include a lot on the common history before the seventh century. This is the history of Byzantine Christianity, specifically, so there is slightly more detail after the 600's.

I took much of this from History of Christianity, so I simply transferred the citations, but then I combined and removed and summarized, and have barely begun editing those sources accordingly. Generally, I would rather be flogged than work on lists of sources, but I'm doing it. If either of you feel like checking and helping, I will figuratively kiss your Wikipedia feet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to contribute on this yet but I can later. I'll try to leave some inline comments. Two things stand out: there is no mention of paganism; and more analysis and with a secondary chronological narrative would better (we already have a history section in the article that covers the narrative). Might be worth listing all the major religious events and disputes and expanding on those. Biz (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work so far. Note that concision (I know, I know) is the name of the game here (the original length of the article was 16,000 words), and so care must be taken that nothing is duplicated elsewhere.

• The first three paragraphs should probably be combined and condensed; the last two sentences of the third paragraph certainly need a hatchet.
• ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Dude! I expect this from you at all times! It's become a comfort to me that some things in life are predictable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I did what Biz asked, instead of what you asked, knowing you will hate it, because I added stuff on state religion which I had previously left out as unnecessary detail. I'm clearly a waffler. Feel free to hatchet away as you see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    I have done some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph is good.
• Fifth paragraph: periodisation is discussed in "History"; not so much detail on the political disunity needed, but more on the theological differences.
  • The political was the religious and vice versa, but I did remove the duplication. I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Sixth paragraph: iconoclasm was the controversy of Byantine religion; it needs a paragraph, not a sentence.
  • Ummm, no. I don't know where you get the idea that iconoclasm was more significant than other controversies. I can expand on it, but I'm having a little dissonance here that's causing some dizziness - you are asking me to add material? Is this really you or some alien pretending to be you? Really, this is a bot right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Seventh paragraph: not really needed in my eyes—we need to keep this focused on the religion of the Byzantine Empire, not the history of Eastern Orthodoxy.
  • Dear, my dear, Byzantine orthodoxy is Eastern Orthodoxy, and it formed Eastern Europe. That seems significant to a few people, founding literatures and countries and all that, at least in its own small way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I shortened it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Eighth paragraph—what I expected from the fifth, should probably be combined.
  • No, no, chronological order remember. Divisions showing in the fourth century, increased in the seventh, and culminated in the eleventh. Can't combine them. That would be a false narrative. Tsk, tsk. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Ninth paragraph will be addressed in "History" (the bits that matter at least); should be reduced to a sentence.
• Tenth paragraph: same thing.
  • Done as much as possible, but since there was a Latin takeover of the eastern church in Constantinople, I think that should probably be mentioned. It can be completely removed if you feel strongly about it. I'm kind of lukewarm. Could be my air conditioning. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Eleventh paragraph: we'll have to figure out later after seeing what is addressed in "History" and "Legacy".
  • seems religious to me. The reunion agreement certainly was. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a really good foundation to make an FA-quality section from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• • In the South we call that a back-handed compliment. Sort of like "That dress is much better than the one you wore yesterday". I sentence you to watching Steel Magnolias three times in a row - without popcorn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Biz, I am copying all of your comments from my sandbox to here and will respond here.

• Make this one sentence, does not need to be expressed in too many words ~Biz.
  • It is two sentences. Which do you think should be cut and why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I didn't see Airship's feedback until now, and I have a preference to concision as well, so this is an easy thing to cut..,but I also do like how you've reworded it. It's probably worth mentioning the prevalence of Greek is what contributed to the spread. Sidenote: Is there a compelling reason we can add to kick this off on why it spread so well at this time beyond common language, trade routes and a good story? Did the Empire provide something of an incubator? I'm thinking along of lines of how in south Asia, some low class Hindu's became Muslim to escape this low status (or to get tax benefits, or because they were forced). Biz (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      The prevalence of Greek is mentioned later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      Side note: Yes of course, more can always be added - but is it necessary detail? To be concise, detail must be eliminated as much as possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      It’s not Greek per se that I care about, but an explanation of how it happened and became the identity of the new Romans.

      For example, Treadgold 1997 p28 “Some Byzantines later believed that God had fostered the Greek language and the Roman state for the very purpose of helping Christianity to spread.” Expanding on this with why, with multiple views from scholarship, is a good way to start the section. Biz (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

      I've made some changes in order to make the progression of division more apparent. Ss what you think while keeping in mind this must remain an overview with little detail. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• there was no "eastern" empire before 284 so does not need coverage
  • Slip on my part. Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is not needed, we deal with the politics of Byzantium elsewhere. But the challenges with the Pope is very important ~Biz.
  • Well, the first sentence is easy enough to remove. Done. But the second sentence is the lead sentence for the rest of the paragraph, which also connects to the lead sentence of the paragraph before it. (The Pope has now come between them, but this response is still valid, since it's the next thing you ask for.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• There should be something about how Rome was given primacy (ie, Canon 28 in the Council of Constantinople -- see page 203-24 of Kaldellis) but the conflict was that decisions should be made by councils according to the east ~Biz.
  • Papal primacy was a slow and incremental process culminating in the Investiture controversy in 1078. Are you sure you want all of that since it's western? How about if I just mention it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Papal primacy is the core conflict between Catholics and Orthodox even today. It was the demand made right until the end of the Empire, and even when the emperor gave in due to desperation in the late era, the populace revolted against it and revoked it. So yes, documenting the origins of this dispute matters. Separate to the Investiture. Biz (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would say one of the conflicts. I have added it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz 10 August feedback Some quick points, sorry I don't have more time to go deeper this moment

• general comment: hard to give an opinion and the truly assess the content without reading the sources. If you're done this separately, would be good to see those notes. otherwise reliant on my knowledge of which this is loosely correct but very wordy and could be more neutral. There a lot of duplication of what is covered elsewhere: try to focus the content only on the religious dimension.
  • I will finish moving the sources. They are at History of Christianity or in the list above this section in my sandbox.
  • More neutral? Excuse me? What are you referring to? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    The discussion about Byzantium. Already discussed and removed. Biz (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Could you explain the last sentence? This is what the religious dimension looks like. It's not all theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• • speaking of which, every sentence should have a citation. Aim for three. This will help compress the expression of main themes.
    • Every sentence does have a citation. If every sentence in a paragraph is from the same page, of the same book, combining citations into one at the end is suggested for "decluttering" according to WP guidelines.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Make a list of key ideas (one per paragraph you want to communicate). This will be easier for us discuss before getting lost in sources and copy editing. For example, with law that I am working on right now, I've got four paragraphs (Explain what is Roman Law, Explain what is Byzantine Law, impact on others, historian debates) that I am currently drafting. It's a good exercise to help cluster what can be a lot of complexity as is the case with this topic.
  • I don't believe this section should be organized thematically. It would be too easy for the average sophomore to get completely lost. It is chronological instead, so your suggestion, while a good one, isn't really possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• there should be something about how Christianity became the state religion of the empire. Like why did it replace Paganism. For example, Kaldellis mentions how Constantine on p.25 did it to melt the temples metals for his coinage
  • Current scholarship indicates Christianity never became the state religion. Constantine certainly never did it. I can add that, but it's another addition that's about the Christianity that existed before the Byzantine version. Are you sure that's what you want? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Paganism began to decline in the second century BC, before Christianity ever came along. Gibbon was wrong. Current views are that one did not "replace" the other in a see-saw fashion. I can add a sentence on the "religious marketplace" that existed then if you like. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    Describing the decline in paganism and how one morphed into the other is interesting. Given some historian still use Christianity as a reason to differentiate the "Byzantine Empire" from the "Roman" empire, this is interesting to help challenge (or reinforce) those views. Biz (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Constantine did not do it, correct. Theodosius and Justinian did more towards this. I think it's an important point to explain this changing view that it's not a state church as this links to the Caesaropapism I've come across in some scholarship but seems to be from the previous generation of historians. Showing how the emperors adopted Christianity for practical reasons to achieve their objectives is interesting to explain and help us understand why the Romans morphed into this direction. Biz (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am glad to find a kindred spirit who also finds all of this as interesting as I do. I certainly agree that it is. But does that mean it should be added to this article? Keeping in mind the need to be concise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is why I proposed doing a section plan of key ideas that need to be communicated before putting pen to paper (one idea per paragraph is how I said it, though that's more a writing style). By being clear about what needs to be communicated, we can be concise as we can evaluated everything as whether is supports those points. So maybe we need this discussion first. Biz (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• There needs to be a complete coverage of church controversies. Of the top of my head but Arianism, monophysites, Chalcedon, monotheletism, iconoclasm, palamism. I think you've covered a few but not all. Not all of them led to new churches. It would be refreshing to read someone can explain all these in one paragraph!
  • This is a totally unnecessary rabbit-hole that we should not go down in a religion section of a larger article. I already allude to them and their impact. Less detail is better, not more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Iconoclasm: it's what sparked the chain of events of why we are calling this empire Byzantine now, so that's enough of a reason why it should be covered.

  Palamism: it describes a characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy that helps explain it's stark difference from western christendom, and may surprise people who read this far into the article how late it was adopted, challenging people who say the Orthodox are the Orthodox ones...

  The others nearly tore the empire apart. Religion was used as a form of managing national security. The fact it involved multiple emperors as one of their top priorities to resolve shows the importance.` High level, agree not to go into detail, but we can't ignore it. Biz (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  'Byzantine' is a term coined by 16th-century historians. In Averil Cameron's Late antiquity and Byzantium: an identity problem she discusses the many problems current scholarship is having in saying when 'Byzantine' actually began. There is no consensus to support your first sentence.

  There cannot possibly be complete coverage of the many controversies and be concise. Those are conflicting demands. An overview without detail is all that's possible and that is already given.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the latest and most comprehensive research of why we've used Byzantine since the 19th century and how it was invented by a Greek nationalist, refer to Kaldellis (2022)

  • Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 366–367. ISBN 978-0-88402-484-2.

  For a perspective why the eastern Roman's stopped being called Roman in the 8th century by western Europe, and how Iconoclasm is related, refer to O'Brien

  • O'Brien, Conor (June 2018). "Empire, Ethnic Election and Exegesis in the Opus Caroli (Libri Carolini)". Studies in Church History. 54: 96–108. doi:10.1017/stc.2017.6. ISSN 0424-2084. S2CID 204470696.

  Covering them by mentioning them can be all done in one paragraph. Commentary of how it impacted other things different. Both @AirshipJungleman29 and I have consensus that Iconoclasm matters for this section. I did notice you've covered them now thank you just need completeness of what I already mentioned.

  As a general comment, things that help explain political issues that is covered in the history narration should be explained here. So for example, Iconoclasm caused issues with the West. Why did it even come about? Why was their disagreement? I see you've added something but there is no mention of how the hypothesis it was the influence of Muslims that the Empire was fighting an existential war with. No discussion about the Franks wanting to show Orthodoxy so that they could can claim to be the actual Romans. I have not looked into this this is just stuff I've read, there must be more scholarship Biz (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  No one really knows why iconoclasm came about. The hypothesis about Muslims remains a hypothesis without evidence right now. There is no evidence indicating the Franks had any influence on iconoclasm either. So 'why?' seems like a useless discussion. I can add at least two paragraphs on how, telling the roles of bishops vs. monks and more on impact, but imo, the short paragraph is sufficient. I can pump up the results a little. See if that satisfies. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yet to look but just wanted to say Kaldellis has an interesting opinion on this. He assets modern scholarship has made it something when it isn’t. P447-449, 473-475. Had more to do with pope’s frustration over other issues using this issue as cover and the influence of eastern monks now in Rome who drove a lot of the politics with Constantinople. Reflecting opinions like this which can be done in 1-2 sentences is useful. We just need a survey of a few of them. Biz (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• a paragraph on the differences between east and west culminating with 1054 is good but not more. Facts of how this relationship started changing (ie, the first schism was in the 4th century see p101-102 Kaldellis), it would periodicaly happen again until becoming permanent) is a good story to paint. What were the key points where the relationship evolved? Read page 616 of Kaldellis onwards about how there was a major misunderstanding due to the letter of Leon of Ohrid.
  • I think I did that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Rework of Religion version 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:The Controversy Surrounding the term Byzantine Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Society/Transition into an Eastern Christian empire

I have problems with the accuracy of this sentence: Theodosius in 391 issued a series of edicts essentially banning pagan religion: pagan sacrifices, ceremonies, access to pagan places of worship were restricted and this eventually included the Olympic Games. I think it should be removed.

Dealing with the last claim first, classicist Ingomar Hamlet says that, contrary to popular myth, Theodosius did not ban the Olympic games. Sofie Remijsen indicates there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius I, coming to an end under Theodosius II instead. Two scholia on Lucian connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the Olympian Zeus during his reign.

In the centuries following his death, Theodosius gained a reputation as the champion of orthodoxy and the vanquisher of paganism, but modern historians see this as a later interpretation of history by Christian writers rather than actual history. Classicist Alan Cameron explains that, since Theodosius's predecessors Constantine, Constantius, and Valens had all been semi-Arians, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity. Numerous literary sources, both Christian and pagan, attributed to Theodosius – probably mistakenly, possibly intentionally – initiatives such as the withdrawal of state funding to pagan cults (this belongs to Gratian) the demolition of temples (for which there is no primary evidence), and the ending of the Vestal virgins, though twenty-first century scholarship asserts they continued until 415 and suffered no more under Theodosius than they had since Gratian restricted their finances. He did turn pagan holidays into workdays, but the festivals associated with them continued.

Did Theodosius ban paganism? While conceding that Theodosius's reign may have been a watershed in the decline of the old religions, Cameron downplays the role of the emperor's 'copious legislation' as limited in effect, and writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism. In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw or advertised himself as a destroyer of the old cults; rather, the emperor's efforts to promote Christianity were cautious, 'targeted, tactical, and nuanced', and aimed mostly at those he saw as heretics. Theodosius was passionately orthodox, but for pagans, this translated into reiterating his predecessors' bans on animal sacrifice, divination, apostasy, and using the Temples or altars for these prohibited practices, while allowing other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open.

There is evidence Theodosius took care to prevent the empire's still substantial pagan population from feeling ill-disposed toward his rule. Following the death in 388 of his praetorian prefect, Cynegius, who had, contrary to Theodosius' spoken policies, vandalized a number of pagan shrines and temples in the eastern provinces, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples. During his first official tour of Italy (389–391), the emperor won over the influential pagan lobby in the Roman Senate by appointing its foremost members to important administrative posts. Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history (Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391 (when some claim he turned anti-pagan).

Previously undervalued similarities in language, society, religion, and the arts, as well as current archaeological research, indicate paganism slowly declined from the second century BC into the seventh century AD. It was not forcefully overthrown by Theodosius I in the fourth century.

References

• Bagnall, Roger S.; Alan Cameron; Seth R. Schwartz & Klaas A. Worp (1987). Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. ISBN 1-55540-099-X.
• Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974727-6.
• Errington, R. Malcolm (2006). Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-3038-0.
• Graf, Fritz (2014). "Laying Down the Law in Ferragosto: The Roman Visit of Theodosius in Summer 389". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 22 (2): 219–242. doi:10.1353/earl.2014.0022. S2CID 159641057.
• Hebblewhite, Mark (2020). Theodosius and the Limits of Empire. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315103334. ISBN 978-1-138-10298-9. S2CID 213344890.
• Kahlos, Maijastina (2019). Religious Dissent in Late Antiquity, 350–450. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-006725-0.
• Woods, David. "Theodosius I (379–395 A.D.)". De Imperatoribus Romanis.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get in trouble if I don't include that I copied much of this from other articles on Wikipedia where it is more extensively discussed: Christianity and paganism, Theodosius I, Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire, History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance and Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jenhawk

• (1) Theodosius I banning the olympics: good point. This paper used on another wikipedia article, not sure how reliable it is, agrees it could be either Thedosius I or II but we don't know. https://www.oocities.org/ejkotynski/Olympics.pdf. Kaldellis (2023) says the last was in 385 but the games in Antioch lasted until the 6th century (p138). He thinks it's a common misconception that they were banned by decree and instead interest in chariot games, lack of funding (due to state policies) and hostility from zealots is what had them end.
• (2) banning paganism. Yes, it's true paganism continued and that wording should be rewritten to reflect that it continued. The referenced source Greatrex says the following.

It was not until 391 that an emperor (Theodosios I) not only banned pagan sacrices and rituals but also forbade entry into temples and shrines...Paganism remained a potent force in many parts of the eastern empire right up until the sixth century: under Justinian energetic measures were required to purge pagans prominent at the imperial court, while in the countryside thousands remained to be converted by missionaries sent out by the emperor

Kaldellis (2023) makes the point that legal discrimination is really what happened with the goal to exterminate. p.178-179 and paganism was still strong until the 6th century. I'm also aware that paganism existed until the 11th century in the Mani Peninsula though that might be a unique case due to its inaccessibility.

As an aside, Kaldellis also mentions things like a novel form of Christian asceticism emerging in the 5th century from Syrian paganism (p182) and I think that's more what happened: harmonisation, like the point made in an earlier paragraph, where local customs became Roman and gradually called Christian.

So we can address as follows:

• we can still keep what Theodosius did but explain it did not end Paganism and emperors continued with their discrimination where it had financial impacts and we don't really see a meaningful change of the 50% pagans at 400 until Justinian where he got more dogmatic.
• make the Olympics a separate point. Given everyone's commentary about relying on Kaldellis, we should look for other support but his points seem strongest. The referenced source is not longer accessible to validate this to confirm it but it's not the best so we could do with better scholarship.

Biz (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Biz, thanx for the thoughtful reply. There is certainly evidence for legal discrimination. That can be said. And there is consensus that the extermination of sacrifice was a primary, vehemently pursued goal - though there is no consensus that there was ever a goal to exterminate polytheism itself. Not that they were tolerant or accepting, but in the Christian view of that time, it was simply unnecessary.

Christians of the fourth century believed that Constantine's conversion was proof the Christian God had defeated the pagan Gods in Heaven. He had "run them out of town". Since paganism was already defeated, they didn't need to do anything to end it. It would end inevitably all by itself. This "victory" - (when they were still about 15% of the population) - is in all the Christian writings of the period. Even pagan writings refer to it - back filling with 'prophecies' about the gods leaving because they wanted to and not because they were defeated.

It can be accurately said that Christian emperors had condescending attitudes toward paganism, practiced discrimination, and used intolerant rhetoric. But with a few exceptions, Christians were, generally, not violent toward pagans. Pagans were not a threat. Heretics were a threat. Constantine and every Christian emperor up to and including Theodosius killed heretics. They did not kill or sanction killing pagans. Not until Justinian.

Theodosius banned sacrifice, just as his predecessors had; he forbade its use for divination (the reading of entrails), and he forbade entry into temples and shrines for the purpose of making a sacrifice. Just as his predecessors. On the other hand, he wrote lots, and lots, of laws against heresy.

I think the reference you cite on the Olympic Games is a blog. There's no indication it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal or book. Here's another article by Remijsen: "Remijsen, Sofie. "The end of the ancient Olympics and other contests: Why the agonistic circuit collapsed in late antiquity." The Journal of Hellenic Studies; 135 (2015): 147-164." The two references I gave are good references. You can probably legitimately say that there is an absence of agreement on whether the games ended under Theo.#1 or #2, but also say evidence leans toward #2. It's misleading otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I've rewritten it, with a note that we can add for the different views. I hope this addresses your concern. I couldn't find Ingomar Hamlet's book, and only wiki results showed him... Biz (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I like it fine now. The note is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More general thoughts

I'm not entirely sure that the section "Transition into an eastern Christian empire" needs to be present in its current form—it seems rather "assorted events in the Late Roman Empire that are vaguely society-related". For example, we devote a paragraph to two events which happened before any of the "start dates" outlined at the start of the "History" section, which per WP:DETAIL probably should be covered in one sentence if at all, given the balance of detail given by the best sources. I recall the subsection was a hangover from the pre-FAR version of the article and sort of think the article would be improved if it were removed—the latter two paragraphs touch on subjects much better discussed in other sections, whether that be "History", "Religion", or "Science and medicine". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "Society" section in general seems heavily slanted towards the early empire. There is only one reference to society past the eighth century. Something to work on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 You have an annoying habit of always being right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The existing sources cover later periods. So yes, possible, to reword and be more specific. But the problem, generally, is there are not enough quality sources (or that I am aware of) to be able to do 2-3 citations per sentence on these specialist topics and for specific time periods. There are also a lot of gaps that theses historians complain about in terms of knowledge.

If you are fine with one citation sentences, which includes Kaldellis, I can give it a go. Biz (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz don't bother, really. The article doesn't need it. There is a dearth of primary evidence and secondary studies on Byzantium. The East has simply not been studied to the degree the Roman west has. Take AirshipJungleman's advice: "the article would be improved if it were removed". Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We can change the heading or move the content. But there needs to be somewhere where a reader can get a concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire. I'm not talking about the politics, which is covered in nomenclature; but the nature.

Language, religion, and the new capital are the three things the RfC last year came to agreement on and that is reflected in the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. Language has its own section which now mostly explains the how. But the environment which created a change in the stakeholders that the emperor thought about, the vacuum for Christianity's adoption and even why this capital lasted versus Nicomedia, Sirmium, Mediolanum, Augusta Treveroru, and Ravenna? Biz (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"But there needs to be somewhere where a reader can get a concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire." Far more important, especially for a section titled "Society", is a concise answer to what the nature of Byzantine society was. Defining it in relation to what came before is not the same at all.

Also, we should probably swap around the ordering of the "Government and military" and "Society" sections, to match other FAs on former countries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine with swapping "Government and military" and "Society" . Still working on them though: hunting to get to three citations per sentence. Law I'm 75% done on this review, at the point now of adding citations to the rewrite I've drafted (which will also help make it more concise). Current text is ok, but misses some important things. "Flags and insignia" is a topic I feel needs investigation to what the current scholarship says. We can take "Transition into an Eastern Christian empire" out of "Society", simplify the first paragraph, rewrite the pagan and olympics issue identified but I believe this content is relevant to this article at a foundational level. Biz (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I've rewritten the entire section, hopefully it's less offensive now. We could re-evaluate its inclusion once we've reviewed all the other sections. Biz (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Biz The concise answer to how the Roman Empire became the Byzantine empire is that the western half collapsed leaving the rest to become what we now call the Byzantine Empire because it was rich enough to survive on its own. Diocletian's division of the empire first set the East on a different path from the West. The East had a stable farm economy, lots of economic resources, an established Greek intellectual heritage, and an autocratic government that tightly controlled the State's truly great wealth. The West was never as stable or as wealthy as the Eastern part of the empire. It was under constant assault from invaders and geographically harder to defend. When the west collapsed, the East was strong enough to survive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's part of it. But the following questions go at the heart of what historians use to call it Byzantine and not Roman. So how do you answer this:

1) Why did the state start enforcing Christianity after previously persecuting Christians, in an increasingly aggressively way?

2) How did Greek end up being the language over the ancestral Latin despite efforts to keep it up to Justinian?

3) Why was Rome made a provincial city, the interim capitals stayed interim, and Constantinople the new permanent capital?

These are big questions not answered in one section. And you partially acknowledge it: something was already there. This section contributes to an understanding based on the latest narrative scholarship. Biz (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

1) in the religion section 2) in the language subsection 3) in the society section, where it isn't currently answered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

1. 1) They did both - if they did both - for the same reasons really. The Roman state valued peace and order at home, and they believed it was the leaders place to obtain divine favor to ensure those things. Roman Empire in late antiquity saw the state as a religious institution with none of the separation between "secular" and "religious" that moderns expect. Monarchy was thought to be the only viable form of government; therefore the chief duty of all ancient monarchs was to gain heavenly favor. This is in the Cambridge History of Christianity on pages 405 and 421 in Drake's article titled ""The church, society and political power". Once the monarchs were Christian, they still had the same responsibility.

But the real question here is, "when did the State actually begin "enforcing" Christianity?" Constantine wrote laws against sacrifice and magic, and laws that favoured Christianity, but there was no legislation forcing the conversion of pagans until the reign of the Justinian I in A.D. 529. Michelle Renee Salzman's "The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the 'Theodosian Code" is available on jstor. There's Drake again, and Patricia Southern's book "The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine" for starters, but there is consensus on that single fact.

There is no doubt that Christian emperors wanted the empire to become a Christian empire. (I think Salzman says that.) They certainly had the power to make laws stating plainly and clearly "everyone must be Christian". Theodosius said all Christians must be Nicene or they can't consider themselves as Catholics - but that's a far cry from forcing all pagans to become Christian. There are laws that some scholars have said "implied" what you suggest, but if enforcement was the goal, why leave something they thought was important to implication and interpretation? Why not just say so? That's what hangs up modern scholars. No one before Justinian did so.

(2) is a question for language, not religion, but I do know that Greek had been the common language going back into BC. It probably has to do with education among the elite since they studied the Greek classics, and probably diplomacy.

(3) How are you defining "provincial" city? I don't think I understand exactly what you're asking.

Don't get defensive about cutting content. It is not a comment on your work. For brevity, it must be done. Everything you can think of can't be included. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Standardisation in the article

(1) Dating scheme: Should we use BCE/AD per the consensus on Roman Empire?

(2) East and West: Should we capitalise when referring to the Western and Eastern Empires, and lower case when talking about regions?

(3) Empire usage: Should we capitalise when referring to the "empire"? When referring to the Empire before Diocletian, which is where Treadgold and Kaldellis start their narratives of the Byzantine Empire, should we refer to it as Roman Empire or early Empire or just "Empire"? Biz (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You are rather confused here! "BCE/AD"!! No, not that. Both articles use BC/AD, & must continue to do so until a proposal to change either succeeds, per WP:ERA. There is no real reason they should be consistent though, but such change proposals rarely succeed for subjects like this. I would say we should capitalize Roman Empire, Western Empire and Eastern Empire when in that form, but "empire" if it is by itself. Most regions will be capitalized proper names - Syria, Greece etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe on point 3, the MOS makes the straightforward prescription that "empire" (or "city", et al.) should be capitalized when functioning as an abbreviated proper noun, and not when being used as a common noun—that can be subtle, see MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I thought there had been some flurry of support since I last checked Talk:Roman Empire, but I don't think so—there's no consensus there, right? I suppose my argument would be identical to mine there: even if every source used one, we should WP:RETAIN the other, as they are perfect synonyms to a degree beyond normal word use considerations.
2. I am completely impartial here, though. Both are fine.

Remsense ‥ 诉 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I support switching to CE rather than AD for the sole reason that "X Year CE" is more gramatically correct than "X Year AD" Garflasange (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you should strike your !vote, since you are incorrect about this. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

AD stands for "the year of our lord' you say 'the year old our lord 2021' not '2021 the year old our lord' Garflasange (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to rewrite that sentence so it makes grammatical sense; while you do that, you may wish to consider which languages you're speaking or typing in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

1) BC/AD, see MOS:DATEVAR. 2) Yes. 3) see what I've done in e.g. "Early history (pre-518)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 Your acerbic wit always manages to make me smile. My vote:

1) BC/AD

2) yes

3) yes, capitalize when used as a title; Early Empire is commonly used by scholars to describe the era before Constantine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations

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

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

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