Wikipedia

Talk:List of Byzantine emperors/Archive 1

< Talk:List of Byzantine emperors
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Jfruh in topic "Called Byzantine"
Archive 1

Does Theodora, Empress of Byzantium belong beside Justinian I? I personally would argue yes, but am biased. :) -- April

I would have to agree based on what I know of her. --Rgamble
I would actually say not -- the list is for emperors and empresses who reigned in their own rights. Theodora was very powerful politically, but she was because she was Justinian's wife. I believe Greek has different terms for Empress Regnant and Empress Consort, but I can't remember at the moment. --Jfruh 17:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The separate terms are Basileus and Basilissa & you're right that Eirene, e.g., when she wanted to make the point that she'd be reigning instead of a man, took the former title instead of the latter. I don't know whether Zoe and Theodora went by a similar title - I vaguely remember that they didn't but wouldn't swear to it unless it somehow impressed a cute Byzantophile coed - ... in any case, Theodora wasn't Theodora II or Theodora B', because the Byzantines themselves didn't consider that she'd reigned in her own right, however powerful she may have been. - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005
IOW, Theodora (11th century) deserves that "Empress of Byzantium" title a little more; but I don't feel like editing more pages today ;) . - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

Another point though is whether to include the symbasileus...es? The coemperors - eg, Andronikos V Palaiologos - or whether they need to have a separate thread somewhere. - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

Query: if we need to disambiguate, what form should we use? I faked something for Leo IV, because he had an epithet, and because "Leo IV of the Byzantine Empire" is unwieldy, but a general form would help. There are a whole stack of emperors, and popes, named Leo. Vicki Rosenzweig

We can use the form for Holy Roman Emperor, i.e. [[Leo IV, Byzantine Emperor]] -- User:kt2
IMO, "of Byzantium" or ", Byzantine Emperor" are both fine. - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

I just wanted to mention, one of the previous changes was moving the "Pogonatus" nickname from Constans II to Constantine IV....from the sources I've been using, that was a mix-up among later chronicles, and it really was Constans II who had that nickname. So I have restored it to the proper person. Adam Bishop 20:00 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Greek wiki has "Pogonatos" on Constantine IV. I'll stick with them ;) - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

In reference to when the Byzantine Empire "started" as a numismatist (coin collector) I tend to put the date 498 AD, when Anastasius implemented a radical reform of the monetary system that included bronzes valued according to the Greek numbering scheme (ie M=40,K=20,IB=12,I=10,E=5,A=1 etc). M123 18:41, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's interesting, I didn't know about that. We could mention that as well. Adam Bishop 20:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
We should mention the precision Empire dating somewhere else; here, the main point will be that they kept up Latin appearances until Heraclius and didn't afterwards; ie, Justinian spelt his name in Latin characters and Basileios II didn't; they were Imperator Caesar Flavius up to that point and Basileus kai Autokrator afterwards. All the other stuff seems aside the point and should be detailed on the first bit of the Byzantine Empire thread, IMO. - Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

In response to the naming issues mentioned previously, I have moved everyone who was previously disambiguated in various ways to "X of the Byzantine Empire." This seemed better then "Byzantine Emperor X," and definitely better than "X of Byzantium" (which to me suggests they are from the ancient Greek colony, not the medieval empire). There are still some issues, I think, with nicknames and family names. Some have them (such as Isaac II Angelus, and the Lascarids and Palaeologans), while others don't (such as Alexius I, who is quite often known as Alexius I Comnenus). I'm not sure what to do about those yet, but I hope I have made the other ones a little more consistent. Adam Bishop 23:30, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. My personal suggestion would be to add "of the Byzantine Empire" only when necessary, adroit redirs can solve the problem of writers who want to automatically type Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire without having to go look at the article each time, and readers will really appreciate the shorter titles. For whether to add additional names, I usually sniff with Google to see if there's a massive preference. Stan 01:12, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Who is there from the ancient Greek colony? Byzans... and maybe a philosopher... -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

I didn't really think of the consequences of this at the time, but when I divided the list into dynasties, I just made up "proto-Comnenid." They don't really belong to any dynasty, but there were Comnenids in it and they sort of ruled in a similar way to the actual Comnenids. But now that has been copied into other languages, and it is used on other websites that use Wikipedia information...so should we just leave it, or change it because it is unlikely to appear that way in a true scholarly publication? Adam Bishop 19:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. These broad dynastic identifications can be useful but are sort of misleading as-is. For instance, Phocas wasn't related to Justinian's dynasty at all; and the two usurpers who ruled between Justinian II's two reigns were not related to him. Perhaps emperors who fall under the dynastic headings but who don't have even a tenuous relationship to them (many emperors were in-laws of their predecessors rather than blood relations) could be indented or otherwise marked out? Maybe I'll do that if I get a chance in the next few days. Jfruh 03:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
IMO, it's better to keep it simple and group the people who -thought- they were gaining legitimacy from each other. X is Y's son-in-law doesn't mean squat genetically, but it created a legal/familial connection that was very important to the Byzantines & very different from X is a soldier who usurped Y. -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

In cases where disambiguation is necessary, I have used "X (emperor)." "X of the Byzantine Empire" does not make it seem like the addition is for disambiguation purposes; rather, because it matches the form used for other monarchs, it indicates that it is just following conventions. Nevertheless, I would suggest something simple like just "X" even where disambiguation is necessary, but to have "X (disambiguation)" linked to at the top. For example, "Constantine I" would be the article on Constantine the Great, while "Constantine I (disambiguation)" would link to all the various Constantines. -- Emsworth 13:19, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ok...but why have some emperors been moved to a title with their family name, and some moved away from it? (Leo VI is no longer Leo VI Chozar, but Alexius IV is now Alexius IV Angelus...) Adam Bishop 22:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All the Angeluses (Angeli) had "Angelus" in the title, so I presumed that it was due to some historical usage appertaining to that dynasty. Leo, however, seemed to be at such a location only to disambiguate with a Pope of the same name. If it is not objected to, I would like to move them all to just "Leo IV," "Alexius IV," etc. -- Emsworth 23:03, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think so...they were listed like that (some with family names, some without) before I came here, and I just left them that way. I'm not sure who wrote them that way or why...I brought the naming issue up elsewhere awhile ago, on one of the naming conventions pages I think, but there was no clear decision about how to refer to Byzantine emperors. Jfruh and I were discussing another reorganization of this page (see above), and Muriel was also trying to organize them to make family trees, so between us we should be able to come up with something... Adam Bishop 16:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I can't really speak to contemporary usage, but "Angelus" in particular is a dynastic name and is rarely used by historians today in the form "Isaac II Angelus" or whatever. Same goes for "Comnenus". However, nicknames like "Leo the Khazar" and "Leo the Isaurian" are not dyanstic, and are commonly used today to refer to these emperors. As the list indicates, almost all the Byzantine emperors have an epithet of some kind or another, but not all are in common usage. Anyway, for consistency, I think it would be safe to leave all these nicknames and dynastic names off of the title of each emperor's page, though I also think it's important to use them in the first sentence or so of the article. --Jfruh 17:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More info about dynasties

I've tried to write out family relations, but I didn't want to copy this over the current article, yet:

"Constantinian dynasty", if it can be described that way:

  • Constantine I the Great (AD 272 - 337, ruled 306 - 337)
  • Constantius II (317 - 361, ruled 337 - 361) – son of Constantine I
  • Julian the Apostate (331 - 363, ruled 361 - 363) – son in-law of Constantine I, brother-in-law and first cousin of Constantius II, grandson of Constantius I

Non-dynastic:

  • Jovian (332 - 364, ruled 363 - 364) – soldier under Julian

"Theodosian Dynasty":

  • Valens (328-378, ruled 364 - 378) - brother of western emperor Valentinian I (so is he really "Theodosian?"
  • Theodosius I the Great (346-395, ruled 379 - 395) – married to Valens' niece
  • Arcadius, (377-408, ruled 395 - 408) – son of Theodosius I
  • Theodosius II, (401-450, ruled 408 - 450) – son of Arcadius
  • Marcianus, (392-457, ruled 450 - 457) – son-in-law of Arcadius, brother-in-law of Theodosius II

Dynasty of Leo, not really the same as Theodosian:

  • Leo I the Great, (401-474, ruled 457 - 474)
  • Leo II, (467-474, ruled 474) – grandson of Leo I
  • Zeno I Tarasius, (425-491, ruled 474 - 491) – son-in-law of Leo I (first husband of Ariadne), father of Leo II
  • Basiliscus (rival emperor), (???-476, ruled 475 - 476) – brother-in-law of Leo I
  • Anastasius I, (430-518, ruled 491 - 518) – son-in-law of Leo I (second husband of Ariadne)

"Justinian Dynasty" for lack of better term:

Non-dynastic or at least a brief different dynasty:

  • Tiberius II Constantine, (540-582, ruled 578 - 582) – father-in-law of a grand-nephew of Justin I; Count of the Excubitors under Justin II (so he's sort of dynastic...)
  • Maurice I Tiberius, (539-602, ruled 582 - 602) – son-in-law of Tiberius II

Non-dynastic:

"Heraclian Dynasty":

Non-dynastic:

  • Anastasius II, (died 721, ruled 713 - 715) – non-dynastic, secretary of Philippicus elected by the senate

Isaurian Dynasty, which is a real term, at least moreso than the previous "dynasties":

  • Leo III the Isaurian, (675-741, ruled 717 - 741)
  • Constantine V Copronymus (the Dung-named), (718-745, ruled 741) – son of Leo III
  • Artabasdus (rival emperor, ruled 741 - 743) – son-in-law of Leo III, brother-in-law of Constantine V (yet still an usurper)
  • Constantine V Copronymus (restored, second rule 743 - 775
  • Leo IV the Khazar, (750-780, ruled 775 - 780) – son of Constantine V
  • Constantine VI the Blinded, (771-797, ruled 780 - 797) – son of Leo IV
  • Irene the Athenian, (755-803, ruled 797 - 802) – wife of Leo IV, mother of Constantine VI

Non-dynastic, or a new dynasty of some sort:

  • Nicephorus I the General Logothete, (ruled 802 - 811) – logothete under Irene; usurper
  • Stauracius, (ruled 811) – son of Nicephorus I
  • Michael I Rhangabe, (ruled 811 - 813) – son-in-law of Nicephorus I, brother-in-law of Stauracius

Non-dynastic:

  • Leo V the Armenian, (775-820, ruled 813 - 820) – general under Michael I; usurper

Amorian (or Phrygian) Dynasty (another real term):

Macedonian Dynasty (definitely a real term):

  • Basil I the Macedonian, (811-886, ruled 867 - 886) (married Michael III’s widow)
  • Leo VI the Wise, (866-912, ruled 886 - 912) – supposed son of Basil I; probably son of Michael III
  • Alexander III, (870-913, ruled 912 - 913) – son of Basil I
  • Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (the Purple-born), (905-959, ruled 913 - 959) – son of Leo VI
  • Romanus I Lecapenus (co-emperor), (870-948, ruled 919 - 944) – father-in-law of Constantine VII
  • Romanus II Porphyrogentius, (939-963, ruled 959 - 963) – son of Constantine VII

Non-dynastic (?):

Back to the Macedonians, or something else?:

  • John I Tzimisces, (925-976, ruled 969 - 976) – brother-in-law of Romanus II
  • Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the Bulgar-slayer), (958-1025, ruled 976 - 1025) – son of Romanus II
  • Constantine VIII Porphyrogentius, (960-1028, ruled 1025 - 1028) – son of Romanus II, brother of Basil II
  • Romanus III Argyrus, (968-1034, ruled 1028 - 1034) – son-in-law of Constantine VIII (Zoe's first husband)
  • Michael IV the Paphlagonian, (1010-1041, ruled 1034 - 1041) – married Romanus III's widow (Zoe's second husband)
  • Michael V Calaphates (the Caulker), (1015-1042, ruled 1041 - 1042) – Michael IV's cousin
  • Zoë Porphyrogenita (978-1050, regent 1028 - 1050) – daughter of Constantine VIII
  • Constantine IX Monomachus, (1000-1054, ruled 1042 - 1055) – married Michael IV's widow (Zoe's third husband)
  • Theodora Porphyrogenita, (980-1056, ruled 1055 - 1056) – daughter of Constantine VIII (Zoe's sister)
  • Michael VI Stratioticus, (ruled 1056 - 1057) – chosen by Theodora

A bunch of non-dynastic people I foolishly called "proto-Comnenan":

Comnenan Dynasty (an actual term):

Angelan Dynasty (I think I've seen this term used...but the Comnenus, Ducas, and Angelus families are all related anyway):

Lascaran Dynasty (in exile as the Empire of Nicaea) (just a convenient term for the exiled emperors, but they are related to the Comenus/Ducas/Angelus families):

Palaeologan Dynasty (restored at Constantinople) (also a real term):

Does this make the page any better? I suppose it could use even more info like the Roman Emperor page. Adam Bishop 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam, this is great, exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of adding. I only have a few minor comments. The first is that you might want to refer to the Theodosian dyansty as the "Vanentinian-Theodosian" dynasty or some such, as the two families became linked when Theodosius married Valentinian I's daughter. (The unity of the dynasty is more obvious when you look at both Eastern and Western emperors.) Also, I would be hesitant about using the word "usurper," particularly in referring to Emperors who succesfully killed off their rivals and ruled unmolested after their usurpation. The term implies that they aren't "real" emperors. Instead, we might want to note that they came to power in a revolt or coup d'etat. Finally, I would say that in the earlier phases of the empire, it's safe to include in-laws within a dynasty, as it was their family connections that brought them to power.
Oh, and to open another can of worms: should we include the Latin Emperors of Constantinople on this list? --Jfruh 19:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think so, they are already listed in the Latin Empire article. I know its imposing order on chaos in hindsight, but from 1204-1261 there is either no emperor at all, or the Nicaean emperors are considered legitimate. The Latin Emperors are not considered part of the legitimate succession despite what they claimed at the time (otherwise the Ottoman emperors would also be part of the succession, since they also claimed to be Roman emperors). Adam Bishop 14:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam seems to have done a great job with the dynasties. But I wonder about a few differences with the standard separation found in most publications concerning the Byzantine Empire available in Greece today:

  • Tiberius II Constantine and Maurice are usually added to the Justinian dynasty. This is based on the reported formal addoption of Tiberius II by Justin II "on December 7, 574".
  • Nicephorus II is usualy added to the Macedonian dynasty as a step-father to Basil II and Constantine VIII.
  • Constantine X, Michael VII, Romanus IV and occassionaly Nicephorus III are usualy grouped as the "Dukas dynasty".

Should we follow the standard or add explanations against it? User: Dimadick

I can add that, if that's the standard...I didn't really know what to do with emperors who had mini-dynasties of their own, or with those who sort of restored a dynasty after a non-dynastic emperor. I sometimes found contradictory info about emperors like the ones above. Do you have any examples of the publications you mentioned? That would be helpful. Adam Bishop 15:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid most of them are Greek publications but they notably include:

  • "Istoria Byzantinou Kratous" ("History of Byzantine State") by Ioannis Karagiannopoulos . Emperors from Justin II to Nicephorus are examined in detail in volume II, "Middle Byzantine Period (565-1081)". Printed in 1978 but often reprinted and used a source. Contains extensive bios for most Emperors and main political, military, social, diplomatic and religious events.
  • "Istoria toy Ellinikoy Ethnous" (History of the Hellenic Nation), a collabarative effort by historians of the Academy of Athens. Examination of the Byzantine period and dynastic history of its Emperors are covered in volumes VII-IX.
  • "Byzantinoi Aytokratores" ("Byzantine Emperors") by Elias Lascaris is much less detailed but contains detailed tables for Dynastic History, pointing the various relations between Emperors. According to it:
    • Macedonian Dynasty (856 - 1056) constitutes of:
      • Basil I.Founder
      • Leo VI, Son of Basil I.
      • Alexander, Son of Basil I and brother of Leo VI.
      • Constantine VII. Grandson of Basil I, nephew of Alexander, son of Leo VI and son-in-law of Romanus I.
      • Romanus I. Father-in-law of Constantine VII.
      • Romanus II. Great-grandson of Basil I, grand-nephew of Alexander, grandson of Leo VI and Romanus I, son of Constantine VII
      • Nicephorus II. Stepfather of Basil II and Constantine VIII
      • John I, nephew of Nicephorus II, son-in-law of Constantine VII, brother-in-law of Romanus II, uncle by marriage of Basil II and Constantine VIII.
      • Basil II. Great- Great- Grandson of Basil I, great-grand-nephew of Alexander, great-grandson of Leo VI and Romanus I, grandson of Constantine VII, son of Romanus II, stepson of Nicephorus II, nephew by marriage of John I, brother of Constantine VIII
      • Constantine VIII. Great- great- grandson of Basil I, great-grand-nephew of Alexander, great-grandson of Leo VI and Romanus I, grandson of Constantine VII, son of Romanus II, stepson of Nicephorus II, nephew by marriage of John I, brother of Basil II
      • Zoe. Great-great- great- Granddaughter of Basil I, Great-great-grand-daughter of Alexander, great-great-granddaughter of Leo VI and Romanus I, great-granddaughter of Constantine VII, granddaughter of Romanus II, step-granddaughter of Nicephorus II, grandniece by marriage of John I, niece of Basil II, daughter of Constantine VIII, sister of Theodora, wife of Romanus III, Michael IV and Constantine IX, addoptive mother of Michael V
      • Romanus III. Son-in-law of Constantine VIII, husnand of Zoe, brother-in-law of Theodora.
      • Michael IV. Son-in-law of Constantine VIII, husband of Zoe, brother-in-law of Theodora, uncle of Michael V.
      • Michael V. Nephew of Michael IV, addoptive son of Zoe, addoptive nephew of Theodora.
      • Constantine IX. Son-in-law of Constantine VIII, husnand of Zoe, brother-in-law of Theodora.
      • Theodora. Great-great- great- Granddaughter of Basil I, Great-great-grand-daughter of Alexander, great-great-granddaughter of Leo VI and Romanus I, great-granddaughter of Constantine VII, granddaughter of Romanus II, step-granddaughter of Nicephorus II, grandniece by marriage of John I, niece of Basil II, daughter of Constantine VIII, sister of Zoe, sister-in-law of Romanus III, Michael IV and Constantine IX, addoptive aunt of Michael V
    • The Ducas Dynasty (1057-1078) consists of :
      • Constantine X. Founder.
      • Romanus IV. Stepfather of Michael VII.
      • Michael VII. Son of Constantine X and stepson of Romanus IV.
      • Nicephorus III may be considered part of the family as stepfather to Constantine Ducas who was son and co-ruler of Michael VII but never reigned himself.
    • The Comnenus Dynasty (1081 -1185) consists of
      • Isaac I. "Founder"
      • Alexius I. "Restorer". Nephew of Isaac I, grand-nephew by marriage of Constantine X, nephew by marriage of Michael VII.
      • John II. (Usualluy called Ioannes o Kalos ("John the Good") or Kaloioannes (GoodJohn) by Byzantine sources). Grand-nephew of Issac I, son of Alexius I
      • Manuel I. Great-grand-nephew of Issac I, grandson of Alexius I, son of John II
      • Alexius II, Great-Great-grand-nephew of Isaac I, great-grandson of Alexius I, grandson of John II, son Manuel I, nephew of Anbdronicus I
      • Andronicus I, Great-grand-nephew of Issac I, grandson of Alexius I, nephew of John II, first cousin of Manuel I, uncle of Alexius II,
    • By the way Michael VIII Palaeologus is noted in the tables as a great-grandson of Alexius III, grand-nephew by marriage of John III, nephew by marriage of Theodorus II and second cousin by marriage of John IV.
  • The standard is also used by Greek encyclopedias such as "Nea Dome" ("New Structure") and "Ekpaideutiki Enkyklopedia" ("Educational Encyclopedia) though they sometimes add Michael VI to the Macedonian Dynasty as a rightfully appointed successor to the Dynasty. Note however that other reputable encyclopedia such as "Papyrus-Larousse-Brittanica" (Encyclopedia consisting of Greek articles from the old and respectable Papyrus dictionary with translated articles from Larousse and Brittanica) tend to list the Comnenus and the Ducas Emperors together as "The Houses of Ducas and Comnenus", thus avoiding listing the two separate periods of the Comnenus family and noting their close relations to the Duca. The later family remained powerful under the reigns of the Comnenan Dynasty and its members include Alexius V and John III. User: Dimadick
Okay, I fixed it up based on this info. I also combined the Ducas and Comnenus families, I've seen them referred to that way - I've also seen them combined with the Angelus family, perhaps we should do that as well? (By the way, what is the adjectival form of "Ducas"? I know I've seen it but I can't think of it...) Adam Bishop 19:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All that info just said that the Ducas and Comnenus families should be separate, didn't it? or did something get deleted??? :confused: -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005
shouldn't it be mentioned tha the Heraklian change from imperator to basileus is more than just a translation from latin to greek, since the traditional and before used term is "autokrator"? Implying within this term a shift in the byzantine view of the imperator (which, nevertheless, has begun as far as Diocletian)?
Yes -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

Nicephorus III

If Nicephorus III Botaniates married Michael VII Ducas' widow, how is it that Micheal VII Ducas outlived Nicophorus by nine years? Wouldn't you have to be dead in order to have a widow?

Michael VII Ducas (1050-1090,ruled 1067 - 1078)

Nicephorus III Botaniates (1001-1081, ruled 1078 - 1081) - married Michael VII's widow.

Heh, that's right, I didn't notice that...actually Nicephorus married Michael's wife after Michael became a monk, so she had two living husbands. Thanks! Adam Bishop 15:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leontius II?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone know why Leontius II is given that numbering? There's no Leontius I. --Jfruh 19:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was an attempt to place a general named Leontius on the throne in the 5th century...maybe he is being counted for some reason. But we don't have an article about him so Leontius II could be safely moved. Adam Bishop 06:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Greek list doesn't count him as II, so I've left it unennumerated -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

Ok - recent changes.

a) Fixed up the introduction to more adequately describe changes in monarchal titles, which seems like it should be the focus of this thread. The currency stuff is interesting, but more appropriate for the Byzantine Empire or Byzantine thread, to me. b) Added a title section to the top. c) Added Latinate names and Greek names from the [Byzantine page] d) Added the first few Palaiologids in exile to the bottom. We should probably start one on Byzantine pretenders, but since the legitimate male branch seems to die out just a little after Andreas sold all the titles anyway, not much loss on that score. e) Replaced the Latinatizations of the Greek epigraphs with translations and left the Greek next to it. f) Did my best to create links to the existing dynastic category threads. Unfortunately a direct category link makes the title disappear... g) Added links to the born-death dates in addition to the regnal dates... Why were they missing in the first place? h) Cleaned up the syntax and form as well as I could i) Added some missing birth/death dates j) Reformated the list to reflect when monarchs were deposed and restored in a more accurate and less confusing manner k) Fixed the non-dynastic lists as well as one's able - yknow, still counting father-in-law-to seems odd now... But like I mentioned before, not as much back then... l) Added in the Saints as I was going through; if anyone is knowledgeable/patient in these matters, please feel free to improve and add others I may have overlooked. Constantine XI has always been treated as a saint, but because of the Union, I don't believe either church ever canonized or even beatified him m) Added in the ultimate fate of some of those monarchs who didn't die peacefully n) Added Pulcheria o) The list of titles given next to Constantine in the main Roman Emperor thread was confusing - by the end were they all added? or were those titles he held and discarded? p) If anyone has better data on rank or position than "soldier" or "officer" please do update the appropriate entries. q) Any Hellenophones know what ο Αδραμμυττηνός is? or Καβαλίνος? ο Τραυλός? ο Γέρος? [edit - got the last one!] good translation of Monomakhos - "Single-Combat" - or should it just be left as the family name it is? I've rendered Kalos as "the Beautiful" - should it be "the Good" instead? r) We should have a link to the Trapezountid dynasty at least; maybe the Epiriots... s) Can we not say "the Shit-named"? It wasn't like they were being gentle with their wording... t) Saw a website listing Emperor Konstantin IX "Euergetes" Monomachus instead of Eugenes for 'the Well-born' - anyone know if this is accurate? -Jowfair 6 Aug 2005

καλος, kalos means beautiful/good, since of course beauty is often confused with goodness, but they are two different things. :) Αδραμμυττηνός refers to Adramyttia, a place near Smyrna. Τραυλός is travlis, stutterer. Monomachia is "single-combat", Monomachos means "He who fights his own battles". Not quite the same thing. Missi 18:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Constantine I is a Byzantine Emperor?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Constantine I is listed on the article as the first Byzantine Emperor, though on his article, he doesn't have a box on the bottom saying that he was a Byzantine Emperor and who he was succeded by. Also, emperors starting from Constantine I to Theodosius I don't have that box as well. Should I start adding those boxes to the articles? Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between "Eastern Roman" emperors and "Byzantine" emperors is not a sharp one. The term "Byzantine" is an invention of later historians; all of these emperors would have called themselves "Roman Emperors," right down to 1453. Constantine is often listed as the first Byzantine emperor because he founded Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire that we now call the "Byzantine Empire", but the division between the West and Eastern Roman empire (which became the Byzantine) didn't really become permanent until more than a century after Constantine's death. I think Roman Emperor succession box we have now on Constantine I's page is OK, honestly. It's not like he has different successors as "Byzantine" emperor. --Jfruh 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Called Byzantine"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A mini-revert just happened over the opening sentence of this article, which reads "This is a list of the Emperors of the late Eastern Roman Empire, called Byzantine." I think its worth adding a few words to make it clear that "Byzantine" is a term used by modern historiographers, not by the emperors themselves under consideration. How about:

"This is a list of the Emperors of the late Eastern Roman Empire, called Byzantine by modern historians."

--Jfruh 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Byzantine_emperors/Archive_1&oldid=1215951847"