Talk:Byzantium

please fix

Constantinople fell to the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1453. The name of the city was changed to Istanbul in 1930 following the establishment of modern Turkey.

This is a wrong statement. How is it that the city of Constantinople stayed until 1930? What was it called till 1930 if it fell in 1453? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.17.206 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please fix this raised issue of when the name Istanbul was first used (obviously earlier than 1930). Thanks in advance for your prompt consideration. (Who fixes these wrong statements?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerm (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

old talk

Well, actually maybe it did take an oracle. Byzantium was an ooooold colony, and had never been of any particular importance. It took bureaucracy to populate it and imperial commands to make aristocrats live there! --MichaelTinkler

Wikipedia and Byzantium

This is a perfectly reasonable 200 word entry and maybe all I should expect from Wikipedia. But Jeez -- the Empire lasted 1100 years! Is it unreasonable to expect a little more depth from this medium??

Er...did you look at the article on the Byzantine Empire? This article is just about the city of Istanbul during the period when it was called Byzantium. At any rate, yes, it is unreasonable to expect that any given Wikipedia article will be particularly good. Those of us who work on wikipedia are working hard to improve it, but it takes a lot of work, and none of us are paid to do this. So while there are some articles that are great, there are others that are quite mediocre. If you think you can make this article better, of course, you should feel free to contribute - we'd love to have the help. john k 16:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much John K. Your work and other researchers is truly appreciated. I use Wikipedia everyday to help me get through school, especially my Civilizations class. I had no idea until I read this excerpt you typed that you do not get paid for this. I truly appreciate you, you have been a world of help to me. Thank you so much, Girl in Jersey...Monique 3:51, Nov. 30, 2005

Muslim should be capitalized.

the word Muslim should be capitalized. -- 70.120.221.138 (Talk |Contributions) (previous user forgot to sign so I signed for him. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

emperors of the past and the present

Don't you think this should be merged with Constantinople?

• Not really, becasue Byzantine was a notable Greek city well before becoming part of the Roman Empire, and later capitol of it. The two are best left seperate, with some info in both. 12.220.94.199 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Flag of Byzantium

There seems to be an inconsistency with this one- here the flag is sia dto have incorpoated the star in 330 AD (or thereabouts) and then was adopted by the Ottoman Empire. In the article on the Flag of the Ottoman Empire the star wasn't introduced until the 1844. Anyone who knows which is right should probably address this!{unsigned}

I think worse that this is the very story. It is my understanding that the crescent was a Muslim symbol long before the Turks conquered Constantinople. In fact, I have often heard a story wherein upon the conqering of Constantinople the cross atop the Hagia Sophia was replaced with a crescent (as can still be seen) as part of its conversion from a church to a mosque. Unless I see opposition, I am going to edit the section. Israelite9191 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked wıth an Orthodox Bıshop and he saıd the entıre entry ıs a fraud. He saıd the flag ıs dıstınctly a hıstorıcal Turkısh Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.80.160 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey, "attributate" isn't a word! -gh

Name trivia

The following was added to Constantinople by an anon user - I moved it here as it seemed like trivia in that article and is more appropriate in this article. I moved it to this talk page as I'm not sure it is accurate, someone else may want to incorporate it into the article who knows more about it. -- Stbalbach 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also two traditions on the name Byzantium. The first one speaks of the city built between two "byzia" (literally meaning boobs) i.e. "wealty regions" Europe and Asia and it was called Byzantium because it was in the middle of two continents. The second one speaks of a Delphi omen saying to Vyzas "built your city close to the city of the blind". Vyzas searched for the "city of the blind", but there was no such city. When he saw the place where Byzantium was to be built he liked so much, that when he saw a city built in Asia accross the Byzantium location (Scoutari or Chrysoupoli) he said to the colonists that they should built their city there cause the "city of the blind" was in Asia already built by "blind" people unable to see the beauty of Byzantium's location.

Merging

The reason is actually obvious, if you check the Istanbul article, there are sections about Constantinople and Byzantium. The Constantinople and Byzantium articles would fit there quite well. Furthermore, these articles contains material common to Byzantine Empire (even Roman Empire). By merging the articles we would have a chance to avoid to represent the same staff in different places. E104421 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the character of the city has changed so dramatically over time, I think it would be better to keep individual pages for Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

These articles should not be merged. For one, the article would be too long and would need to be split again on size grounds. For another, when a reader searches on "Byzantium" or "Constantinople" they don't expect to read about Istanbul the modern city - these are distinct phases (Pagan, Christian, Muslim) with distinct histories and context. Lastly, E104421's concern about duplication is actually a feature of Wikipedia. We have Main article tags that direct readers to the main article, with a short summary paragraph. This is commonly done throughout Wikipedia and works well - in best practice the short summary paragraph would be a cut-paste of the main articles Wikipedia:Lead section. This is discussed in the Manual of Style. -- Stbalbach 13:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then, i'm removing the tag. E104421 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You only want to merge the articles for your personal reasons; let's say fewer articles indicating the Greek history of Istanbul going back to antiquity. Even if such a ridiculous POV-push did take place, it wouldn't last. The article Constantinople has had enough POV-pushing by Turkish editors already, such as the official usage of the term Constantinople only until 1453 (instead, say, 1930). So let's just leave it at that. Miskin 15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i already explained my reasons above, do not mix/compare other's edits with mine. I'm only responsible with my own edits. Be civil at first. E104421 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus

According to Herodotus 4.144, it was Megabazus who made the comment that the people of Chalcedon were blind, upon a visit to Byzantion...?

Emblem

Byzantium was the first state to make the crescent moon and star its state symbol and emblem. The day Byzantium fell, those were the flags the turks saw flying above the city before they went inside. There are some Turkic nationals trying to lesser this by attempting to find as many cultures as possible who used any combination of moon/moons - crescent moon/moons ect and 1 -12 stars with Gods on top ect. By doing this they hope to leave open the theory that maybe a turk saw this emblem in some other land on their travels before Byzantium and that is why it is in their flag. IE to negate the Greek origins. Fair enough. But under the British flag article or the french flag article, there is no long-winded explanation on everyone or anyone ever to use lines in a flag or the color blue. That is because it is irrelevant. If another culture ever used the crescent moon and star together as a symbol of state at anytime, we must add it. It must be known. However Byzantium was the only one to use that exact and striking combination. There is no need other than turkish nationalism to list the millions of cultures who may or may not have had stars or moons in a carving on some wall at one time or another. Reaper7 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone license and use this in the article?

coinTHRACE, Byzantion. Autonomous issues. 2nd century AD,Star and Crescent.Megistias (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC

i found this an ancient coin of byzantiun with the crescent and the star i think is useful for the page http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6793/nomi.jpg

Flag references

I've found some sources which indicate that the flag of Byzantium was a crescent: [1] [2]--Hut 8.5 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've referenced the first part of the section which says that the crescent and star were the symbol of the ancient Greek pagan city of Byzantium (before it became Constantinople). The claims about the emblem during the Christian era now need sourcing. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with its use, later on, but are you good folks familiar with the legend(?) that Constantinople was taken when the waning moon and Venus were clearly visible -the Turkish flag symbolism representing the conquest-? Is there any credence to it? (this question might actually be off-topic here and more on-topic at Flag of Turkey but since there seems to be some knowledge of the crescent moon - star symbolism here, I thought I'd ask) 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium in poetry

I would start off with William Butler Yeats, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.104.193 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Byzantium & the Athenian Empire

Shouldn't there be some mention of Byzantium's inclusion in the Athenian Empire? It was rather important to its success... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

500+ Year Gap to be Filled

More should be entered between the attack of Phillip of Macedon and sacking by Septimius Severus, at least mention the date of conquest of the city by Rome and to what province it belonged to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joellm47 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this doing in the History section?

The following was a lone paragraph in the middle of the History section:

"Byzantium is also a word that is used by a submissive to her Master when thoughts of protoplasm are released through the cemicial release given to the submissive when the balance of ones willingness is given to her teacher."

I don't know what this is about. There is no reference to this anywhere else in the article. There are no links. There are no citations. It sounds erroneous, perhaps made up.

I have removed it. If there is good reason to keep it in, someone should provide a citation, and put it somewhere else in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.254 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Byzantion?

In the history section Byzantium is referred as Byzantion more than once and with no explaination as to why. If this is a misspelling I think it should be fixed. If it is intentional I think it would be interesting to know why it was called that and then changed into Byzantium.

Edd

Did you read the lede? Byzantium is the latinized form of Greek Byzantion. Both names are the same, in different languages. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Persia, Athens, Sparta - the Temples

The Persian Empire conquered Byzantium (Byzantion). Athens and Sparta also ruled Byzantium. (No mention of them in this article!)

In Ancient Byzantium, there were temples of Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Demeter, Athena, Ge, Hera, Hades, Dionysos and Persophone... source: "Topkapı Sarayı ve çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi"( by Hülya Tezcan) = The Archaeology of Topkapı Palace and the Ancient Byzantium Böri (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Temple of Zeus (in Byzantium) turned into "The Church of Saint Menas". The Temple of Helios (Apollon?) became a courtyard surrounded by houses, The Temple of Artemis became a gaming room, and The Temple of Aphrodite became a carriage-house for the Praetorian Prefect. / The works of Raymond Janin are important for Ancient Byzantium. Böri (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Temple of Hera was destroyed by the Persian army (at the time of Dareios I)... The Temple of Hades was destroyed by Philip II (the father of Alexander the Great)Böri (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguation

The entry badly needs better disambiguation. Byzantium is the obvious and best known natural title of, and obvious natural search term most people would use when looking for the content currently placed under Byzantine Empire. It is quite disconcerting to arrive at this page instead, particularly as there is no disambiguating notice at the top of the page, just a link to the disambiguation page. Ideally, Byzantine Empire would appear here under its most-used, most obvious title and the place (as discussed on this page) appear under something like Byzanyium (place). But if that is thought awkward, then there should certainly be a prominent notice placed at the top of the page, linking obviously and directly to the desired content. Notice that a Google search for "Byzantium" leads directly here, not to Byzantine Empire, which is what (probably) 98% of visitors would be looking for. Tannin (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Byzantium paternal writing

The Slavonic lettering article links to this page under the text "Byzantium paternal writing" (see the "Cyrillic script – uncial (11th century)" section). Nothing in this page currently explains what Byzantium paternal writing might be. I can't find anything about it online except for one page that duplicates much of the text from the Slavonic lettering page (and I can't begin to guess which was borrowing from the other), which doesn't help.

If anyone has an explanation to offer, please add it to the page. Thanks. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205132031/http://www.istanbulinfolink.com/the_city/istanbul/history_1.htm to http://www.istanbulinfolink.com/the_city/istanbul/history_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Other places with the same name?

Hello,

on the map in ths article there is, on the Western Indian coast, a pointer named "Bizantion" - does anyone know anything about why a place in India is described with this Greek / Grecized name? Are there other places with this name or a derivative thereof? -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing clause in the opening.

"The Greek term Byzantium (or Byzantion) continued to be used as a name of Constantinople during the Byzantine Empire, even though it only referred to the empire's capital."

I don't understand the clause at the end. Constantinople is a city. Calling Constantinople Byzantion "even though it only referred to the empire's capital" doesn't make any sense; of course the name of the city refers only to the city. Is this maybe trying to say, "The Byzantine Empire was used as a name for the empire a century after it fell, even though Byzantion only ever referred to the empire's capital."? Because that's true. But that doesn't make sense either for the original sentence, because "during the Byzantine Empire" nopony called it the Byzantine Empire. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@TricksterWolf: I have removed the troublesome and redundant clause and made some other changes. GPinkerton (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is it?

It's probably obvious to anyone interested in the subject matter where it is, but you *really* have to search, very carefully in this article to understand that this is in Turkey. Yes, there's a map in the info box, but that picture isn't informative to a person not-well versed in geography, I suspect.139.138.6.121 (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Horns of amun?

You dont mean the head band? 2601:402:C300:E70:5998:8B30:78A2:3BFB (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus Sceptre (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

---

• Byzantium → Byzantium (city)
• Byzantium (disambiguation) → Byzantium

– The city is not the primary topic of "Byzantium". A majority of results on Google Books and Google Scholar searches for "Byzantium" use the name to refer to the Byzantine Empire as a whole. The Oxford Very Short Introduction on Byzantium is about the empire. There are also other topics listed at Byzantium (disambiguation), although they are much less historically significant than the empire. I would prefer making the dab page primary, but I'm not against a primary redirect to the empire. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is a good distinction and one that will help people who are not familiar with Byzantine history (like myself) understand the difference better. Photonsoup (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support the renaming to Byzantion. The term Byzantion [3] is more commonly used for the ancient Greek city than Byzantium which refers mostly to the Byzantine Empire. Othon I (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused. That renaming is not being proposed here. If you want to propose it, you need to create a separate move request. (But I predict it won't go far on an English language site.) Eleuther (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Othon I is not confused. Suggesting an alternative title during an RM is perfectly valid and it's in fact quite common for such alternative proposals to be successful. Lennart97 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is dicing things too finely. It's like saying Rome should become a DAB page, which contemporary Romans would probably object to. Yes, Rome is a common eponym for the Roman Empire, like Byzantium is for the Byzantine Empire, or, for that matter, like London is for the British Empire. But none of these examples justifies mangling the articles about the cities themselves. Eleuther (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Rome still exists under the same name, the city of Byzantium does not. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Eleuther Ale3353 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Eleuther and Common Name. It may be that some people encounter the term "Byzantium" in articles dealing about the Byzantine empire, but if they come looking here for the article about the empire, I'm sure they will look under "byzantine empire". For those who don't, the existing disambiguation note at the beginning of this article will resolve any doubt. In fact, "Byzantium", being a synecdoche of "Byzantine Empire" (like "Rome" for the Roman Empire or "Washington" for the U.S.A.) is always used as a synonym alongside the main term, not instead of it. Alex2006 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Eleuther Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support renaming to Byzantion per Othon I. The city in question is much more famous under its later names, and the corresponding articles are much longer. In other words, this is nothing like the case of Rome. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support either Byzantion or Byzantium (city). If anything is primary for Byzantium it's probably the Byzantine Empire, but a disambiguation page at the base title will do just fine. I don't understand why there are three "per Eleuther" oppose votes without any additional rationale, when Eleuther's Rome analogy clearly fails. Lennart97 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Byzantion clearly fails WP:COMMONNAME. It most certainly is not the city's common name. And the Byzantine Empire is usually referred to as such. Yes, "Byzantium" is sometimes used as shorthand for the empire, but most often it refers to the city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The analogy to Rome is flawed since there's only one article (Rome) about both the ancient and the modern city (which thus has a far stronger claim to primary-topic status), while here we have a weaker claim involving only the ancient city. A much more comparable case is Akkad, a disambiguation page listing both the ancient city and the ancient empire, both of which are frequently referred to by that term alone. The reason applies equally well to this case: since searching "Byzantium" in Google Books and Google Scholar yields mostly results about things other than the city, it clearly isn't the primary topic. I don't feel strongly about Byzantium (city) vs. Byzantion, although the latter may be preferable simply on natural disambiguation grounds. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What’s up with Serbia on the map

The north has an extra like running through it 213.114.108.180 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)