User talk:Joseph534AD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Joseph534AD! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place 
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.|
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
|
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
|
On the subject of roman/byzantine emperors
Hey, I noticed you were reverting my edits about Roman/Byzantine emperors. I would like to advise you to discuss in the talk page before reverting any further, otherwise, moderators will be notified and the situation will be dealt with accordingly. I am free to discuss, but edit warring will not be tolerated. Teotzin190 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- If you’re going to call Emperors after Zeno “Roman emperor” then be consistent with it. You stopped at Heraclius but did “Roman emperor” from Anastasius I to Phocas. Why stop there? They are all Roman emperors, either name them what they were, or revert all names back to “Byzantine” or change them to “Roman”. Make your choice. Joseph534AD (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would strongly suggest not changing "Byzantine emperor" to "Roman emperor" throughout multiple articles, especially when certain articles are GA status. That is a quick way to an Indefinite block. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for engaging in the discussion. I'll list down some points that support my edits.
- 1. Heraclius is widely regarded as the pivot from a Latin dominated imperial administration toward a Greek dominated one. Scholars most often date the de facto shift in administrative language to 620, and by the end of the Persian wars around 629 Heraclius is recorded using the Greek style basileus rather than the older Latin Roman titulature. For that reason I mark his reign as the terminological pivot.
- 2. For navigational consistency I link all emperors after 480 to the Byzantine emperors list (the established modern reference), and I preserve the visible title “Roman emperor” for the period from 480–610 to signal the continuing Latin institutional character. That is done deliberately for nuance.
- 3. Calling every single post 480 ruler simply “Roman emperor” and removing the Byzantine linkage would defeat the purpose of having a distinct Byzantine emperors page and would remove a useful category that groups the eastern line of succession for modern readers. Conversely, calling early eastern emperors “Byzantine” without qualification is anachronistic and loses the important fact that Latin institutions and identity persisted into the sixth and early seventh centuries.
- 4. The transformation from the title “Roman” through 610, with later emperors treated as Byzantine in both link and title is intended to reflect the gradual change across late antiquity, instead of an abrupt, single-year conversion.Teotzin190 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, personally I do not subscribe to the “Byzantine” term being any different entity from prior centuries of consist government rule of the Empire. The first “Byzantine” emperor was Constantine the Great, who himself never called himself such. Roman is what they had been always, but in fairness, there is a distinction between the empire of antiquity & the empire of the Middle Ages, regardless of the fact that it is the same Empire with no formal declaration of their “Romaness” ending, even up to the fall of Constantinople. Heraclius did not issue any official changes to language as is falsely believed by some & while he did take the title “Basileus”, he never stopped referring to himself as “Augustus” either, and much of her successors continued to use Latin in communication with the west. So I respect your answer even if I do not fully agree with it. Joseph534AD (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct that no single imperial edict replaced Latin, its administrative use declined gradually through the 7th century. However, scholars generally treat the reign of Heraclius as the practical pivot toward Greek administration and titulature. Linking to the Byzantine emperors list for consistency while retaining the title “Roman emperor” until Heraclius would accurately reflect continuity and gradual transformation. His reign coincides with the period when Greek usage in administration intensifies and the Greek style title basileus appears in sources by the late 620s, even as older Latin formulae linger but decline in usage. The date is rather fuzzy but the general consensus is that the imperial identity shifted from more Latin to Greek in the early-mid 7th century with Heraclius often cited as the pivot. I've seen a few definitive years thrown around: 610, 620, 629, 632, but they all coincide with Heraclius' reign.Teotzin190 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, wouldn’t it make more sense to give Heraclius the honor of being the last man titled “Roman emperor” on this platform as a way to show he was symbolically a shift from the old to the new? Just a curious question. I’m aware of the title “Emperor of the Romans” appears on the profiles of other emperors’ in future, alongside the Byzantine emperor label. So I’m just asking, with how you’ve described you reasons for keeping the “Byzantine” label, that Heraclius is seen as the last “true” Roman emperor before the loss of the ancient eastern territories as I like to put it? Joseph534AD (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Coming back to this after some time, I understand your point and largely agree. Heraclius is often regarded as the last emperor of the Late Antique system. His reign coincides with the destruction of the final legion (Legio V Macedonica) during the Arab conquests, the loss of core provinces such as Syria and Egypt, and the transition toward the thematic system that developed more fully in the mid-7th century. Teotzin190 (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, wouldn’t it make more sense to give Heraclius the honor of being the last man titled “Roman emperor” on this platform as a way to show he was symbolically a shift from the old to the new? Just a curious question. I’m aware of the title “Emperor of the Romans” appears on the profiles of other emperors’ in future, alongside the Byzantine emperor label. So I’m just asking, with how you’ve described you reasons for keeping the “Byzantine” label, that Heraclius is seen as the last “true” Roman emperor before the loss of the ancient eastern territories as I like to put it? Joseph534AD (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct that no single imperial edict replaced Latin, its administrative use declined gradually through the 7th century. However, scholars generally treat the reign of Heraclius as the practical pivot toward Greek administration and titulature. Linking to the Byzantine emperors list for consistency while retaining the title “Roman emperor” until Heraclius would accurately reflect continuity and gradual transformation. His reign coincides with the period when Greek usage in administration intensifies and the Greek style title basileus appears in sources by the late 620s, even as older Latin formulae linger but decline in usage. The date is rather fuzzy but the general consensus is that the imperial identity shifted from more Latin to Greek in the early-mid 7th century with Heraclius often cited as the pivot. I've seen a few definitive years thrown around: 610, 620, 629, 632, but they all coincide with Heraclius' reign.Teotzin190 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, personally I do not subscribe to the “Byzantine” term being any different entity from prior centuries of consist government rule of the Empire. The first “Byzantine” emperor was Constantine the Great, who himself never called himself such. Roman is what they had been always, but in fairness, there is a distinction between the empire of antiquity & the empire of the Middle Ages, regardless of the fact that it is the same Empire with no formal declaration of their “Romaness” ending, even up to the fall of Constantinople. Heraclius did not issue any official changes to language as is falsely believed by some & while he did take the title “Basileus”, he never stopped referring to himself as “Augustus” either, and much of her successors continued to use Latin in communication with the west. So I respect your answer even if I do not fully agree with it. Joseph534AD (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- 4. The transformation from the title “Roman” through 610, with later emperors treated as Byzantine in both link and title is intended to reflect the gradual change across late antiquity, instead of an abrupt, single-year conversion.Teotzin190 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erwig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Armenian and Persian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)