Talk:1st millennium/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted cultural landmarks. The paragraph is fairly irrelevant and contains an insignificant piece of trivial history. Intranetusa (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just wanted to address my recent reversion of Groupthink's "CE" edit—I accidently reverted all of the other edits since his edit, and I apologize. Thanks for reverting that part, Arthur. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think it reads well, now, though. A problem is that the millennium begins with years in an astronomical or prolypic (sp?) Julian calendar, and ends in the Julian calendar. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the opening paragraph does not read well. Perhaps this:

The first millennium is a period of time which commenced on January 1, 1 and ended on December 31, 1000. This millennium is the beginning of the Anno Domini/Common Era.

Alternatively, maybe this?:

The first millennium is a period of time which commenced on January 1, 1 and ended on December 31, 1000. This millennium is the beginning of the Christian/Common era.

Any other suggestions?. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the Anno Domini/Common Era phrasing, seems meaningful and reads well. Dheppens (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Iconoclast?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I dont understand using the noun "Iconoclast" to describe Jesus. Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious icons. So is Jesus a destroyer of Religious Icons? That doesn't make sense. I think the noun mean here is simply "Icon." ie- "Rabbi and icon apotheosized by the Christian religion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.67.12 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire should be classified as a European empire...

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see that user Kiore recently reverted an IMO perfectly sensible edit made by 70.162.153.203, who placed the Byzantine Empire under the list of European empires. Kiore's stated reason for reverting this edit and moving the Byzantine Empire under Asia was the following:

Reverted good faith edits by 70.162.153.203 (talk); The byzantine empire was also in Asia including much of modern Turkey and the Middle East. (TW)

I agree with the comment that the Byzantine Empire "was also in Asia", though I would like to stress that Africa also was very important to the Byzantine Empire. However, I do not see how the Byzantine Empire "also being in Asia" leads to it being listed exclusively in Asia over Europe (or for the sake of argument, Africa)? What's the measure stick or reasoning used for deciding that the Byzantine Empire is to be classified as an Asian empire?

While the territory of the Byzantine Empire fluctuated significantly during its history, its capital Constantinople was territorially 100% European (not to confuse with modern-day Istanbul which is on both sides of the strait). The Byzantine state origins and cultural origins were also unmistakably Greco-Roman and the Byzantine core population was always Greek, who are by virtually everyone considered Europeans despite some Greeks in the past settling and living in places all over the Mediterranean like the territories of today's Turkey and Egypt (but also forming colonies in southern Italy, France, Spain, etc).

In an equivalent way, the Phoenicians are considered a Middle-Eastern people regardless of the fact that they formed colonies in north Africa, Sicily, etc (of course, provided that they didn't assimilate into the native population and lose their national identity). If ancient Greek philosophy and culture is legitimately considered European and Western, despite the territorial diffusion of the ancient Greeks throughout the Mediterranean, then surely there shouldn't be any fuss regarding calling the Byzantine Empire a European or Europe-based empire with its 100% European capital, Greek core population and Greek/Greco-Roman state structure and culture?

An analogy available in this very article is the classification of the Roman Empire which also spanned the same 3 continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) as the Byzantine Empire did and which is correctly listed as being a European empire presumably due to among other things its capital, i.e. political center, being in Rome and its culture being European. There doesn't seem to be any dispute regarding this classification of the Roman Empire on this page, so I don't see why the Byzantine Empire should be treated any different?

I've gone the extra length here explaining the reasons why I consider the original edit by 70.162.153.203 correct and likewise why I consider the reversion made by user Kiore incorrect. I'd very much appreciate opinions and feedback from others regarding this, in the related 2nd millennium article the Byzantine Empire is listed under Europe and I personally recently moved the mention of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in that article from "Asia" to "Europe" for the reasons that I've listed here. It would only be logical to harmonize the categorization of the Byzantine Empire so that it's listed under the same continent in both articles. Abvgd (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

of course, as regards ancient history, the division of Europe vs. Asia vs. Africa is from the perspective of Greece, so naturally Greece itself is situated in neither. The Byzantine Empire of course originates as East Rome, and it is fair to say that the Roman Empire was "European", but by the late 1st millennium, it had probably lost its "European" association and became part of "Eastern Christendom". This is what happens when you try to write an article about an entire millennium: things and definitions shift around and you cannot expect to make a statement that holds true throughout the 1000 year period you're trying to describe. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate the feedback... Nevertheless, I'll have to dissent from your assessment of Byzantium "losing its European association". As the Byzantine Empire contracted territorially by the turn of the 1st millenium, it became if anything even more European since it was basically reduced to holdings in the Balkans, southern Italy and an ever-decreasing part of Anatolia (i.e. Turkey). Once Alexandria was lost to the Arabs, Constantinople remained as the only cultural and religious center of the empire.

As for the religion and culture, if by Eastern Christendom you mean the Byzantine Orthodox Church, that has always been a thoroughly European branch of Christianity. Even during the heyday of Byzantium, the Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East was always a source for dissent and religious schisms until the Islamic conquests when these dissenting Christian sects either were engulfed by Islam or strayed even farther away from Byzantine Orthodoxy due to their political and geographical isolation.

Apart from Greece, the Byzantine version of Christianity in the form of the Orthodox Church only gained a firm foothold in the Balkans and Eastern Europe with Russia becoming its main "torch-carrier". The same goes with Byzantine culture; wherever Orthodox Christianity spread, Byzantine culture (which was heavily infused with Orthodox Christianity) followed in its heels.

You might by Eastern Christianity have had in mind the various non-European Oriental churches that are not associated with either Rome or Constantinople, for instance the Copts, Assyrians or Ethiopians. However, these churches are separate entitites and quite different in tradition and rites from the Greek and Slavic Orthodox churches.

So, to call the Byzantine Empire, its religion or culture non-European would IMHO be to ignore the very essence of this empire. There is no dispute that both the Roman Empire and its geopolitical extension, the Byzantine Empire, were spread on three continents. However, if one needs to clasify them, then they can only be classified as European since their center was and always remained in Europe, regardless of their military and political (mis)fortunes that changed their borders throughout the centuries. Abvgd (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)