Talk:List of Byzantine emperors

Why not name it Byzantine Roman Emperors?

Using "Byzantine Roman Emperors" clarifies the period and region, ensuring there's no confusion of the Medieval Roman Empire as non-Roman entity Itisme3248 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no confusion and no reason to make up a new phrase. We use what sources use. Remsense ‥ 论 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about those outdated sources that pushed the myth that the Byzantines didn’t consider themselves Romans, but rather Greeks or just Orthodox by ethnicity? "Byzantine" should really only be used to distinguish between periods, like "Republican Roman," "Imperial Roman," and "Byzantine Roman." A lot of those sources were politically motivated, and newer research has debunked them.

I suggest that you updated yourself: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674986510 Itisme3248 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean the vast majority of English-language reliable sources, which in this domain generally would exclude anything older than Ostrogorsky. Really, we don't tend to cite anything older than Treadgold. I respect Kaldellis a lot too (I'm just going to assume as I'm not going to bother clicking—he's the only one people making this argument have tended to read), but if you actually care to understand what he says, he's not under the illusion that Byzantine Empire isn't the predominant name for the state, and his books aren't the only ones worth reading. If you think you've got some incisive angle on this, you're going to be disappointed: I am not kidding when I say this is among the most tired disputes in the history of Wikipedia, made all the more so because of how unavoidably obvious the correct answer is in terms of site policy (WP:COMMONNAME). If you actually care about the argument you're making at all, check the archives on Talk:Byzantine Empire, and you'll find there's nothing new under the sun. Remsense ‥ 论 15:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute the use of "Byzantine". What i dispute is the use of "Byzantine" alone without "Roman". That reinforces misconceptions about the name of the empire. The best title would be "Byzantine Roman emperors". Itisme3248 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As for older sources, a lot of the more recent "research" on the Byzantine period isn’t reliable because it just recycles the same old narratives, using circular references, like the idea of a Christian ethnicity and not a distinct Roman one from other Christians, including orthodox.

Itisme3248 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's one dimension of Byzantine studies—the ethnology—that Kaldellis did well to refresh. To dismiss anything older than him citing one area of weakness (every academic milieu has them) and extrapolating it outward to the entire body of scholarship is just hyperbolic. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we, the editors of an ostensibly tertiary source, be at liberty to coin our own terminology? It's just not our prerogative to right great wrongs we profess to find in the sources. It's our job instead to reflect them, and we'll change when they do. No one wants to read yours or my editorializing on academics' behalf, I promise. Remsense ‥ 论 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How should this page be formatted/trimmed

This article, as it was this morning, has serious issues with formatting. For example, the headers were inside the table (which broke on Mobile view), there was way too much information on each emperor, and the images were uncropped and often not the best portrait we have of the emperor. The image sizes also weren't standardised until I fixed it. I thought List of Roman emperors, which contains all the information on this page, was formatted much more neatly, so I proposed deleting this article and renaming List of Roman emperors to List of Roman and Byzantine emperors, but the result was overwhelmingly "oppose". People suggested I instead edit this article, and User:Biz proposed making List of Byzantine emperors an exact clone of List of Roman emperors from Constantine I onwards. I did so, but then User:Obenritter said I removed too much well-cited information that he worked hard on. So I started combining the formatting of List of Roman emperors with the information that was on this article. But, personally, I think it looks uglier this way, as there is too much text (which should be on the emperors' individual articles) and the information isn't neatly organised into succession, lifespan, and life details. I have three options now: 1. Leave the article as it was before 2. Make the article a transclusion of List of Roman emperors from Constantine I onwards, excluding emperors who did not rule in the East 3. Combine the structure of List of Roman emperors with the information that was on List of Byzantine emperors For reference, here is what the three options look like for emperors Constantine to Valens/Procopius:

Option 1

Constantinian dynasty (306–363)

See also: Constantinian dynasty

Portrait	Name	Reign	Notes
	Constantine I "the Great" Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Μέγας Fl. Valerius Constantinus	25 July 306 – 22 May 337 (30 years, 9 months and 27 days)	Born at Naissus c. 272 as the son of the Augustus Constantius and Helena. Proclaimed Augustus of the western empire upon the death of his father on 25 July 306, he became sole ruler of the western empire after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. In 324, he defeated the eastern Augustus Licinius and re-united the empire under his rule, reigning as sole emperor until his death. Constantine completed the administrative and military reforms begun under Diocletian, who had begun ushering in the Dominate period. Actively interested in Christianity, he played a crucial role in its development and the Christianization of the Roman world, through his convocation of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. He is said to have received baptism on his deathbed. He also reformed coinage through the introduction of the gold solidus, and initiated a large-scale building program, crowned by the re-foundation the city of Byzantium as "New Rome", popularly known as Constantinople. He was regarded as the model of all subsequent Byzantine emperors. His reign was marked by greater imperial control over the Eastern Church and the construction of new churches, especially at the holy places sacred to Christianity. To this day, Constantine is venerated as a saint by the eastern Orthodox church.
	Constantius II Κωνστάντιος Fl. Iulius Constantius	22 May 337 – 3 November 361 (24 years, 1 month and 25 days)	Born on 7 August 317, as the second surviving son of Constantine I, he inherited the eastern third of Roman Empire upon his father's death, sole Roman Emperor from 353, after the overthrow of the western usurper Magnentius; after two years on the run, the latter committed suicide. Constantius' reign saw military activity on all frontiers, and dissension between Arianism, favoured by the emperor, and the "Orthodox" supporters of the Nicene Creed. In his reign, Constantinople was accorded equal status to Rome, and the original Hagia Sophia was built. Constantius appointed Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesares, and died on his way to confront Julian, who had risen up against him.
	Julian "the Apostate" Ἰουλιανὸς ὁ Ἀποστάτης Fl. Claudius Iulianus	3 November 361 – 26 June 363 (1 year, 7 months and 23 days)	Born in May 332 at Constantinople (the first emperor born there), Julian was the grandson of Constantius Chlorus and cousin of Constantius II. Proclaimed by his army in Gaul, he became the legitimate Emperor upon the death of Constantius. Julian has been described as the last pagan emperor of the Roman Empire and was generally opposed to Christianity. He was killed on campaign against Sassanid Persia, despite his initial success in surrounding the ancient city of Ctesiphon. For his adherence to the old Roman gods and rejection of the Christian faith, he became known as Julian the Apostate.
	Jovian Ἰοβιανός Claudius Iovianus	27 June 363 – 17 February 364 (7 months and 21 days)	Born in c. 332, Jovian hailed from a military family and was captain of the guards (protector domesticus) under both Constantius II and Julian. He was elected by the army upon Julian's death. After assuming power, Jovian withdrew Roman forces from Persia and made an unpopular peace with them, which lasted until the early sixth-century. Following an autumn spent in Antioch, he died of natural causes in central Anatolia and was buried in Constantinople.

Option 2

Constantinian dynasty (306–363)

Main article: Constantinian dynasty

Constantinian dynasty

Portrait	Name	Reign	Succession	Life details
	Constantine I "the Great" Flavius Valerius Constantinus	25 July 306 – 22 May 337 (30 years, 9 months and 27 days) West; then whole	Son of Constantius I, acclaimed by his father's troops as augustus. Accepted as caesar by Galerius, promoted to augustus in 307 by Maximian, refused demotion to caesar in 309	27 February 272/273 – 22 May 337 (aged 64/65) First Christian emperor and founder of Constantinople. Sole ruler of the Empire after defeating Maxentius in 312 and Licinius in 324. Died of natural causes
	Constantius II Flavius Julius Constantius	9 September 337 – 3 November 361 (24 years, 1 month and 25 days) East; then whole	Son of Constantine I	7 August 317 – 3 November 361 (aged 44) Ruled the east initially, then the whole empire after the death of Magnentius. Died of a fever shortly after planning to fight a war against Julian
	Julian "the Apostate" Flavius Claudius Julianus	3 November 361 – 26 June 363 (1 year, 7 months and 23 days)	Cousin and heir of Constantius II, acclaimed by the Gallic army around February 360; entered Constantinople on 11 December 361	331 – 26 June 363 (aged 32) Last non-Christian emperor. Mortally wounded during a campaign against Persia
	Jovian Jovianus	27 June 363 – 17 February 364 (7 months and 21 days)	Commander of imperial household guard; acclaimed by the army after Julian's death	330/331 – 17 February 364 (aged 33) Died before reaching the capital, possibly due to inhaling toxic fumes or indigestion. Last emperor to rule the whole Empire during their entire reign

Option 3

Constantinian dynasty (306–363)

Main article: Constantinian dynasty

Constantinian dynasty

Portrait	Name	Reign	Notes
	Constantine I "the Great" Flavius Valerius Constantinus	25 July 306 – 22 May 337 (30 years, 9 months and 27 days) West; then whole	Born at Naissus c. 272 as the son of the Augustus Constantius and Helena. Proclaimed Augustus of the western empire upon the death of his father on 25 July 306, he became sole ruler of the western empire after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. In 324, he defeated the eastern Augustus Licinius and re-united the empire under his rule, reigning as sole emperor until his death. Constantine completed the administrative and military reforms begun under Diocletian, who had begun ushering in the Dominate period. Actively interested in Christianity, he played a crucial role in its development and the Christianization of the Roman world, through his convocation of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. He is said to have received baptism on his deathbed. He also reformed coinage through the introduction of the gold solidus, and initiated a large-scale building program, crowned by the re-foundation the city of Byzantium as "New Rome", popularly known as Constantinople. He was regarded as the model of all subsequent Byzantine emperors. His reign was marked by greater imperial control over the Eastern Church and the construction of new churches, especially at the holy places sacred to Christianity. To this day, Constantine is venerated as a saint by the eastern Orthodox church.
	Constantius II Flavius Julius Constantius	9 September 337 – 3 November 361 (24 years, 1 month and 25 days) East; then whole	Born on 7 August 317, as the second surviving son of Constantine I, he inherited the eastern third of Roman Empire upon his father's death, sole Roman Emperor from 353, after the overthrow of the western usurper Magnentius; after two years on the run, the latter committed suicide. Constantius' reign saw military activity on all frontiers, and dissension between Arianism, favoured by the emperor, and the "Orthodox" supporters of the Nicene Creed. In his reign, Constantinople was accorded equal status to Rome, and the original Hagia Sophia was built. Constantius appointed Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesares, and died on his way to confront Julian, who had risen up against him.
	Julian "the Apostate" Flavius Claudius Julianus	3 November 361 – 26 June 363 (1 year, 7 months and 23 days)	Born in May 332 at Constantinople (the first emperor born there), Julian was the grandson of Constantius Chlorus and cousin of Constantius II. Proclaimed by his army in Gaul, he became the legitimate Emperor upon the death of Constantius. Julian has been described as the last pagan emperor of the Roman Empire and was generally opposed to Christianity. He was killed on campaign against Sassanid Persia, despite his initial success in surrounding the ancient city of Ctesiphon. For his adherence to the old Roman gods and rejection of the Christian faith, he became known as Julian the Apostate.
	Jovian Jovianus	27 June 363 – 17 February 364 (7 months and 21 days)	Born in c. 332, Jovian hailed from a military family and was captain of the guards (protector domesticus) under both Constantius II and Julian. He was elected by the army upon Julian's death. After assuming power, Jovian withdrew Roman forces from Persia and made an unpopular peace with them, which lasted until the early sixth-century. Following an autumn spent in Antioch, he died of natural causes in central Anatolia and was buried in Constantinople.

So, which option is the best?💖平沢唯が大好き💖 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 is way better. We can still keep some of the info in a reduced form (in addition to the life details of the Roman list), since this is supposed to be a concise list and not a collection of biographies. Tintero21 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The pages reference are broken so it's hard to assess the sources. It appears it is mostly reliant on a few dated sources. With that said, I support option 2. There is no reason to make this list different from the List of Roman emperors and which is a FA. Biz (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 provides more room for text. By the way, if you combined name, reign, and succession in one field, you would make lots of space for actual text. Just a thought. --Obenritter (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not against that. I just see no reason why List of Roman emperors is different. If that FA community thinks it is worth doing, then I’m up for it. Otherwise, this list is not trying to meet list best practice. Biz (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I've ever considered FA worthiness, since it never mattered to me. However, if the assemblage of editors is trying to meet some standard (list of best practices) beyond the goal of educating general readers, then so be it.--Obenritter (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also much prefer option 2. Option 1 & 3 are far too overly detailed—that information belongs in individual biographies. This list should take a more general/broad scope, since it is a much more general/broad topic. – Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while with no response so I guess Option 2 won 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So why did you just implement option 3? I’m fine with this for now as it’s less disruptive but the process being run is not ideal. Biz (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed my mind and decided that Option 3 is better, because it would be a shame to remove all that information, and because List of Roman emperors already exists and we don't need an exact copy of it. But since you like Option 2 more, feel free to revert what I just did 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

References

several missing citations

Hello ILoveHirasawaYui! In your recent edits, you added several footnotes which cause errors. Footnotes were added for "Norwich 1989", "Gregory 2005", "Louth 2008", "Reinert 2002", and "Skylitzes 2010", but no citations exist for any of these. Are you able to provide the missing citations and clean up the errors so the material you added can be made verifiable? -- mikeblas (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll do that tonight 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes! -- mikeblas (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Portrait of Alexios II

Hello ILoveHirasawaYui, I noticed that you added a contemporary close-up image to the table, which according to its description, represents Alexios II. Some time ago, I noticed that this portrait doesn't look so much like a man, and the uncropped image 1, from which it is derived, represents: "Manuel I Komnenos receiving Agnes of France, wife of his son Alexios II". Are we sure that this is actually Alexios and not, let's say, Agnes of France? I asked this here too 2, but apparently noone saw it there. I could well be wrong and this may indeed be Alexios, I'm just curious if we have any confirmation. Piccco (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Piccco

Ioannis Spatharakis identifies it as Alexios II in page 211 of The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. He says "the figure behind the emperor is not a princess, but the son of the emperor, who is also depicted in the upper zone of this miniature and in the miniature of f. 2v, sitting next to his father (Fig. 161). All these three figures wear similar crowns, purple robes, loroi, segmenta on the arms, hems and, moreover, have identical faces and hair."

For that passage to make sense, you should look at this scan of the actual manuscript. Figure 161, which is the one we're discussing, is on page 2v. And Figure 162, which the author is talking about, is many pages later on 7r. Spatharakis is saying that the person behind the emperor in the lower half of Figure 162 has to be Alexios, because he looks identical to the one sitting next to the emperor in Figure 161, who is Alexios. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow okay. Thank you for the very detailed explanation. At least, it seems that I wasn't the only one confused by this depiction. Indeed, the beardless face and most importantly what seems to be long hair make this person look female, thus, if I understand correctly, even Strzygowski identified this figure as a princess. Before writing here, I had also noticed that this person looks a lot like the one sitting next to the emperor in this illustration (7r), and here is different from Agnes, so it seems to make sense that Spatharakis would identify him as Alexios. Piccco (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, Alexios was 10 (and his bride Agnes was 9), so I think that's why he looks a bit feminine. But that file on commons (and this one) are mislabeled. That's actually Alexios' mother Maria of Antioch, not Agnes. Agnes is shown on pages 3v and 6r. When I get home, I'll try to correct all the articles that use those two files, and upload pictures of Agnes to use on her article. Or you wanna do that instead? 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind I just did it 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy, can’t believe I messed that up, my bad! (I uploaded the image) Thanks for the correction Tintero21 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but @ILoveHirasawaYui good catch. Thank you. Piccco (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC for naming conventions of Byzantine emperors

There's a debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Heraclius/1 about the correct naming convention for emperors in this period. "Byzantine" seems to be the standard terminology used on Wikipedia for this period per WP:COMMON, but the pages for emperors show no consistency. Some infoboxes for emperors use "Roman", "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine". Can we build a consensus on what the correct terminology should be?

For the record, I'm in favor of using Byzantine. @A.Cython, Donner60, and Teotzin190: were involved in the original discussion. Edward056686 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any point in attempting to impose uniformity on terminology that varies considerably within scholarly sources, and has varied going all the way back in modern scholarship. The choice of what to call them typically depends on what a given author chooses to emphasize for any number of reasons. The earlier emperors are likely to be referred to as "Roman" or "Eastern Roman", the later ones more often as "Byzantine", but there's no sharp dividing line, and never has been.

The Byzantine Empire has always been synonymous with the Eastern Roman Empire; one title emphasizes its political origins, ties to, and continuity with the Roman Empire of classical antiquity; the other title emphasizes its distinguishing features, Greekness, etc. Both terms could reasonably be used in the same article, either to contrast these characteristics, or simply for verbal variety. In my opinion the consensus should be that there is no consensus to use one and not the other throughout the topic as a whole. P Aculeius (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: You raise a good point for allowing both Byzantine and Eastern Roman on Wikipedia, but I think it might be helpful to readers if each page has some internal consistency. The exception would be a page that purposely discusses and explains the differing terminology. Having the infobox and lead say something different would make no sense. Edward056686 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

P Aculeius Thank you for your comment, however, I have some minor questions/observations.

• This is the status quo as far as I know. However, during Heraclius reassessment I made changes to improve the article and since Heraclius is 5-6 times more frequently depicted as Byzantine in the literature I adopted the "Byzantine" descriptor. All fine so far. Then other users editors come and no no, we enforce a particular Roman periodization, leading to a mix up as it currently stands (With byzantine in main body and Easter Roman at the infobox). This creates friction and jeopardizes GA reassessment. I do not see the use of both as primary descriptors as this creates redundancy and confusion to readers, especially in articles where one is much better suited, e.g., in the literature Byzantine term becomes the most popular descriptor for all the emperors starting with Justinian. Are we throwing out WP:DUE and WP:COMMON in favor of the personal choice of Roman periodization? If this was the case why don't we merge Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire articles?
• Similarly in the future, if I plan to improve a biography of an emperor or another character, what am I supposed to do when other editors insist of their choice of Roman periodization, but one that I find incompatible to the improvements that I need to do? Abandon the improvements or get ready to have lengthy (and perhaps combative) discussion?
• As far as I know and understand WP has adopted a Roman periodization, and it is the one described at the Byzantine Empire article, i.e., starting at 330 AD. This is also the most popular in academic literature and already have presented highly respectable WP:RS (both WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources) that support this.
• It appears to me that we just continue to prioritize content creation over consistency, as it was done in the previous 25 years. However, the times are not the same since most users do not create content as it used to be and now we are in the phase of improving existing content. However, the current policy (of no policy) may cause the loss of significant valuable time over terminology because editors nowdays are defending specific positions rather than creating new content (at least this is my impression). A.Cython(talk) 13:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clear, there is a policy as outlined in Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ:

"Byzantine Empire" is used in accordance with the English Wikipedia's policy on using common names, a part of the broader naming conventions policy. In English-language reliable sources, "Byzantine Empire" is by far the most commonly used and recognisable name for the polity.

We just not enforcing it. A.Cython(talk) 18:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s an active debate in Byzantine scholarship right now where it’s hard to assess what the current consensus is. Suffice to say, calling the emperors Roman and the people Romans, does not stop us from calling the period they lived in as Byzantine and the Greek-language sources Byzantine (the original use of Byzantine by historians before the 19th century). Eastern Roman is the proposed new naming (against Byzantine) and I think both can coexist. As it’s a scholarship debate that goes at the heart of perceived western bias, my view is we need to prioritise neutrality over any other policy. Biz (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

As discussed in the relevant article, neutrality is maintained not by including every possible proposals in the literature but by adopting the mainstream position per WP:NPOV:

Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

The terms "Byzantium" and "Byzantine Empire" are 240 and 70 times more popular than "East Roman Empire", respectively (see Google Ngram results). Similar for "Byzantine Emperor" vs "Eastern Roman Emperor", see results 12 times. This should not be even a discussion per WP:COMMON and per WP:DUE:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, (added emphasis)

We reject naming conventions at far lower thresholds, e.g., 2-3 times or even lower. While academic opinions may fluctuate, we are not in the business of reading tea leaves of which opinions will become popular in the future. WP:TERTIARY sources have been clear about naming convention. Once and only once community as a whole adopts a particular position as reflected by how the community publish as a whole as reflected by objective metrics then we adopt the new mainstream position. The only reason that this continues to be an issue is IMO that people like Romans and want to make everything Roman. Byzantines are Romans but a different kind: Christian Romans. A.Cython(talk) 19:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. But just want to be clear: we are waiting to see what the Byzantists have as consensus. They are having an identity crisis right now. Biz (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it really a crisis or a manufacturing one so that some scholars have something to write about (a good business model for journals and publishers)? A citation needed here, please. Fake data, paper mills, hyperbolic statements etc have become all too common in science and I suppose in history as well. I do not see evidence of a crisis and the numbers above speak for themselves (similar results can be obtained in JSTOR, etc). Maybe one day these numbers will change, then we can change policy, but not before, meaning after the so-called crisis ends and it has become clear what is the new consensus then and only then we adopt a new policy. As of now we should carry on with the existing one, i.e., Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ.

The reason that I insist on objective metrics (e.g., Google Ngram, JSTOR, Google Scholar, etc) is that everyone has their WP:POV including academic scholars, each pushing based on their reputation, careers (get tenure), and selling more books. There is a solution to avoid future conflicts and this is to enforce the existing WP guidelines and established policies based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DUE, and Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ. Otherwise it will continue to be a wild west in which few editors will have the appetite to further improve WP as they are constantly being reverted by anyone pushing their own version of Roman periodization. A.Cython(talk) 04:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

There is an entire discipline called Byzantine Studies. There is nothing wrong with saying that we follow the consensus of the academics who define the field.

For the record, I was involved in the decision behind the FAQ you keep referencing, and I am one of the largest contributors to the Byzantine Empire article by edit count, words written, and scholarship introduced. Having spent hundreds of hours engaging with the literature to bring the article to its current state, I am well across the issues that shape how this history is framed. I am also well versed in broader ancient Roman, ancient Greek, and modern Greek history, so I consider my perspective balanced over the long term.

I am also familiar with Wikipedia’s policies, and with the conservatism that exists in both Wikipedia and academia, and how that needs to be navigated. But there comes a point where something needs to be done. Take, for example, the articles principate and dominate. These were recently removed from the Vital Articles list by other editors because of the scholarship I introduced there. My goal is to ensure that the latest scholarship is appropriately reflected on Wikipedia. Biz (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Biz I greatly respect your knowledge and I have learned things from your responses over the years in the Byzantine Empire article, but your credentials are not the issue here. The issue is to apply the WP policies based on the current (not future) mainstream academic positions; by mainstream I mean the majority (say >51%) of academics. Note that I also have the goal to improve WP, we may have different opinions but eventually each one of us find room for compromise.

Reading the latest scholarship is great thing, but not all new papers and books have something valuable to say nor it is a reflection of the mainstream position. As I am in the academic environment (not history), I can tell you that we consider 99% of new academic papers/books as not worth reading (to put it mildly). In each paper/book it is expected for the author to state why the current status quo is wrong, but most fail to provide convincing/reasonable alternatives/solutions. Why are they being published, because it is part of the publishing business!

If there is a crisis then it will be years or decades to sort out for us to have a clear picture of what has happened. I have kept asking for evidence whether these proposed naming conventions have became (not whether they might be) the mainstream position. So far I have seen not seen concrete evidence. It becomes essential to reach to decision (other than the no enforcement option of current established policies) so that we are not perceived that we are promoting a position per WP:PROMO as the use of Eastern Roman Emperor reflected and advocated by a single/minority professor (the numbers presented above reflect this). In addition, such a decision will minimize the damage has been done by lack of enforcement leading already to one GA demotion (former Byzantine Greeks) and one is pending (Heraclius).

Proposal

I will propose the following as a compromise in an effort to close this discussion quickly and not let drag for months.

1. Emperors from Constantine I upto the fall of Rome in 476 AD to keep their descriptor at the infobox as is.
   • Rational: While technically they are Christian Roman Emperors, i.e., Byzantine Emperors, these are also under the early era of Byzantium (Protobyzantine) and so the Byzantine characteristics while growing they were not as dominant. The fall of Rome in 476 AD put the final nail in the coffin in which the Western part ceased to play any significant political role in its history and it did not take long before reaching its complete desertion in 546 during the Gothic War. The choice of 476 AD also ends the division of East and West, since the latter ceased to exist and thus calling something "East" in absence of "West" is meaningless.
   • Stats: This is also reflected by the frequency of "Byzantine Emperor" in Google Ngrams appears to the specific emperors, see Anastasius and Zeno; the ratio is about 1:1. JSTOR gives 6:3:2 for Byzantine:Roman:Eastern Emperor Zeno and 3:1:0 for Anastasius. For earlier emperors the Roman descriptor becomes more popular because it reflects the belief of the authors that while Byzantium started in 330 AD, its characteristics were not yet dominant. (note that in Google Ngram "Roman" results include the "Eastern Roman" ones)
2. Emperors from Justinian I (or bit earlier, e.g., Anastasius, if fall of Rome is preferred for the crossover) and onward to be called Byzantines
   • Rational: Two out of the three schools of thought point to Justinian reign as the one in which the Byzantine characteristics of the Empire became obvious through a series of discontinuations. The brief reconquest of Italy only reinforced the identity schism that was taking place since the fall of Rome, i.e., Italo-Romans were viewed as equivalent to barbarians for being under their rule for 60 years, while Italo-Romans ceased to see themselves as Romans after the corruption and harsh taxation of Justinian and his administration. Moreover, under Justinian, there were sweeping legislative reforms and further continued the Christianize his empire, which was started under Constantine and reinforced by Theodosius. On top of all this the Justinian plague (1/3 of population was killed) shook the empire to the core. Another aspect was the extensive construction projects (some started under Anastasius) that were initiated or completed under Justinian (e.g., Hagia Sofia), much of which established the foundations of Byzantine aesthetics in later years. These are some of arguments that I seen in the literature.
   • Stats: Google Ngrams gives of Justinian and Heraclius (note that Eastern Roman Emperor does not even register). It is clear that starting with Justinian the Byzantine descriptor is consistently more popular than any other. JSTOR gives 48:39:2 for Byzantine:Roman:Eastern Roman Emperor, while for Heraclius we have 24:2:0. Note that how rare is the "Eastern Roman" description is for both of them.
3. As mentioned above, we should keep the same terminology within each article (same in main body, lead, and infobox).

The above proposal by taking into account the past and current scholarship "as a whole" without getting attached to the views of a single scholar. Your feedback is welcomed. A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree with having 476 as the division. Tintero21 (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal does not include any alternative option similar to what P Aculeius suggested, which I agree with. That is what neutrality is. I do not support 476 as a hard division, as this is a minority view of scholars now. While this is a good analysis, to do this, we are engaging in WP:OR and which quite frankly, we do not need to do. Biz (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It is the reflection of the community as a whole, no WP:OR is involved, that how in WP deal with naming conventions since the beginning. Not to mention that the current stage of the articles/division is not only filled with WP:OR but also plagued by minority academic opinions. The proposal while not perfect it is an improvement.

If you do not like crossovers (as I trying to find a compromise), then the solution is simple. All of the emperors from Constantine I all the way to 1453 to be called Byzantines. Source: Emperors and Imperial Dynasties of Byzantium by Sviatoslav Dmitriev (2025) Oxford University Press. Simple and with no crossovers. A.Cython(talk) 02:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

All Eastern emperors, yes, Byzantine and from Constantine. Not the Western court ever. I can accept that. That’s the least worst option.

I’ll say it again: to be neutral, we do what P Aculeius said. Biz (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Insofar as article titles and infoboxes go, I doubt there's much objection to using "Byzantine" instead of "Eastern Roman", at least beginning at some point between 476 and the death of Justinian. I think 476 is as good a dividing line as any. But within the body of each article, or in links from other articles, editors should be free to vary how they describe the emperors, based on what aspects are being discussed, or simply to avoid repetition. If this isn't what the question is about, then perhaps the question needs to be rephrased. P Aculeius (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

As stated, this is good enough for me. As it is perhaps best to judged case by case. I understand the concerns of when the crossover between the plain "Roman" and "Byzantine" takes place. Several authors point to the (whole) fifth century as the transition rather than pointing to a specific event as the fall of Rome 476; their argument is that it took century for Constantinople starting in 330 AD to grow from a town to a metropolis and being able to exercise its muscles. So they are a bit fuzzy whether the early/first Christian emperors were Roman or Byzantine; I do not have much to say on this transition.

The reason that Eastern Roman has become such a concern is that it was recently advocated (Kaldellis, Romanland (2019)) as a complete replacement of "Byzantine" in the entire Byzantine Studies field. Thus, Eastern Roman is not anymore a complementary descriptor but an opposing one, meaning that the choice of the descriptor (in titles and infobox) becomes a declaration of support for the particular position against the established consensus. This position is a minority one as demonstrated by the numbers presented above. I am ok of Eastern Roman being used in the main text at the appropriate context and meaning (i.e., so long it does not acts as a replacement of Byzantine). Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 18:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I support A.Cython's proposal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @P Aculeius that "within the body of each article, or in links from other articles, editors should be free to vary how they describe the emperors, based on what aspects are being discussed, or simply to avoid repetition". Also, not sure about Justinian, judging by the ngrams, both options go head-to-head, and the "Byzantine" is a) not the current consensus version and b) less neutral. Alaexis_¿question? 16:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see the conclusion of (a) and (b) that you provided. Byzantine Emperor Justinian is more popular by the plain "Roman Emperor" by 1.6-2.0 times in Google Ngram (note that "Roman Emperor" Ngram results entail the "Easter Roman Emperor" and so the divide is wider than it looks (see updated graph)) in the last two decades, 1.8 times in Google scholar, JSTOR 1.3 times etc, and several respectable WP:TERTIARY sources (in addition to the one provided above) describe him as such

• Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire" McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers (2015) Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus. Byzantine emperor from 527.
• The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies Oxford University Press (2008) By the time of Justinian imperial art had fully incorporated Christian symbols and the Byzantine emperor was represented as the head of a Christian state appointed by God.

Not to mention "Byzantine" is explicitly used by historians to describe the Roman emperors who were Christian (starting in 330 AD), and so the Roman (any variation) is the one that is misleading creating confusion with the pagan Romans of the classical age. However, this can be discussed at his talk page once time comes. The major concern is the use of "Eastern Roman Emperor" in the infoboxes for numerous emperors including Justinian. The particular term is much more of a minority than the plain "Roman Emperor" and yet it is used everywhere!? It should be replaced. A.Cython(talk) 15:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)