Talk:Heraclius

Cultural depictions of Heraclius

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure if Heraclius has ever been depicted in (modern) pop culture. He's an important figure but from a time period that is extremely obscure to modern people. --Jfruh (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Heraclius is portayed, and his reign forms much of the background of, the novel Theodore, by Christopher Harris (published in 2000 by Dedalus, ISBN 1 873982 49 6). Christopher Harris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.196.118 (talk) 09:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

• Heraclius features prominently in Frank Schaefer's novel Whose Song Is Sung which covers the life of a 7th century Byzantine courtier. Tor Books; 1st ed edition (March 1996)

• The colorful 17th century play Heraclius, empereur d'Orient: tragedie by Pierre Cornielle is also of interest. See the introduction to Kaegi's book for more treatments of Heraclius across the centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.205.83 (talk) 15:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Why is the quotation "Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius..." credited to Milman? It was written by Edward Gibbon, Milman is his curator, who added notes noticing Gibbon's mistakes, but the REAL writer of the quotation is the GREAT Edward Gibbon. Please, give to Gibbon what is Gibbon's, and give to Milman what is Milman's.--87.20.144.100 (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Milman, the Sources showed Milman's edition of the Decline & Fall under M with no indication that it was an edition of Gibbon! Anyhow, there were three references to Gibbon, so I've regularized them to point to one source (Womersley's very nice 3-volume Penguin edition). Wgrommel (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

For the argument about whether to use "Byzantine Empire" or "Roman Empire" naming standards please see Nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire -- Esemono (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Before discussing the etymology of the Byzantine Empire, please visit the relevant archived discussionsTalk:Byzantine_Empire#Well.

Without Citation

This from the article: "In the Islamic world, he is seen as something of an ideal ruler who studied the Qur'an, was a true believer of Islam, and viewed Muhammad as the true prophet, the messenger of God." Forgive my ignorance, I have never heard of such a thing. When and how did Heraclitus study the Koran? I see that later in the article there are citations for the claims, but I think it's significant that there are no non-Muslim sources for such ideas. This speaks to their credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutugno (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Heraclius' Empire was a neighbour of the growing Islamic Empire. Copies of the Koran were in large supply especially by the Eastern Orthodox church who were investigating whether or not Muhammad was a real prophet, they decided he wasn't obviously. As a leading scholar of Christianity its only natural he would have some copies. The article doesn't say Heraclitus was a true Muslim it says "In the Islamic world" they said he was, big difference. -- Esemono (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading and writing Arabic was not so diffused at the time of Heraclius. The story about his reading Koran is a pure islamic legend, I'm afraid. --Cloj (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about reading Arabic Korans? -- Esemono (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Koran was not written down until some 100 years after the time of the Prophet. If so, then Heraclius did not read it. Cutugno (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There were copies while Muhammad was alive but the official copies weren't made until he died in 632. Heraclius lived till 641 and he discussed religious stances with Muhammad while the man was still alive.-- Esemono (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am doubtful about those stories in precicely the same way as I am about claims of miraculous conversions in the European Vitae Sanctorum. It certainly deserves a mention in the text that muslim tradition portrays Heraclius as very pro-islamic, but that is as far as I would go. The notion that the caesaropapist ruler of Christianity was a very likely candidate for conversion seems straight out laughable. No offence to the readily offended, but the counterpart would be a Christian source claiming that Heraclius managed to shake Muhammad's belief in Islam by a letter and the testimony of a christian dignitary. Trigaranus (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A) Wikipedia isn't about the truth it's about Verifiability. Reliable sources say (peer reviewed journals I might add) that Muslims believe Heraclius tried to convert to Islam. B) The article totally agrees with what you say. The article doesn't say Heraclius converted to Islam it says: "some Muslims consider him ...", "In Muslim tradition he is seen as ...", "Islamic histories even go so far as claiming...", etc. -- Esemono (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, totally with you. I'm fine with the article, it was just a comment on what has been said here. Trigaranus (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"There were copies [of the Koran] while Muhammad was alive but the official copies weren't made until he died in 632." Esemono, I must ask respectfully, are you making this up as you go along? Talk about VERIFIABILITY (or in this case the lack of). Cutugno (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with dealing with "works of God" like the Bible and Koran. Believers believe that these books are protected by God and so are direct from God's mouth and so there is no difference between the early books and the versions that exist hundreds of years later. But you're right verifiability is paramount so I've tracked down the sources and put in what can be verified. -- Esemono (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All points above are moot as Islamic histories such as hadith are accepted as historical data for that region and time period due to lack of sources. And to the people arguing that it is not credible because they come from muslim sources this is a huge mistake, if historians used this as a qualifier we would dismiss 90% of the history of the world because history is rarely recorded by 3rd party sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.131.72 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Problematic terminology

The article currently changes randomly between use of the terms Byzantine, Greek, and Roman. To those not intimately familiar with Roman history this is very confusing. I would propose

• Introduce him as the "Byzantine, or Eastern Roman, emperor".
• Decide whether or not to use Byzantine or Roman for the rest of the article and use the term consistently.
• Avoid using the national term Greek. Most modern scholars avoid the term in this context anyway and does nothing but further confuse the issue.

--192.88.165.35 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"devised" typical wiki cap, use the common word willed or left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Theological pov-pushing

@Velalash89ko: Read the section properly please : El-Cheikh notes that these accounts of Heraclius add "little to our historical knowledge" of the emperor; rather, they are an important part of "Islamic kerygma," attempting to legitimize Muhammad's status as a prophet.[71]

Most scholarly historians view such traditions as "profoundly kerygmatic" and that "enormous difficulties" exist in using these sources for actual history.[72] Furthermore, they argue that any messengers sent by Muhammad to Heraclius would not have received an imperial audience or recognition.[73] Outside of Islamic sources there is no evidence to suggest Heraclius ever heard of Islam.[74] and it is possible that he and his advisors actually viewed the Muslims as some special sect of Jews.

Thus there is no proof that Heraclius even as much as knew Islam, let alone Muhammad. Therefor it is not alleged that he had contact with Muhammad. Remove your addition or someone else will eventually remove it. You are downgrading a GA article by cherry picking sources that are in your favour. The lede should always summarise what the main text of the article says, which you have done the opposite of. Furthermore, I removed the images because there is something called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. It would be great if you read the rules of this site before anything else. Last but not least, we normally don't add citations on the lede, since it is already cited in the main text, which it isn't even either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i have read them, but personally speaking I consider them historical,but again i did not add them. What are you trying to point out? Can you see that I've mentioned that IT IS ALLEGED...... VARIOUS SOURCES AND HISTORIANS..... nadia and Lawrence Conrad etc.. As for the images, it was ok in the legacy section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I have 0 interest in knowing what you believe. What am I trying to point out? Well read my comment again! The so-called coresspondence between Heraclius and Muhammad is considered bogus per the section. thus it not even alleged, as it is rejected in modern scholarship. And no, the images weren't fine, READ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Also, Wikipedia:Competence is required.--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You've told me that modern historians are against me and now you are mentioning about your 0 interest. What do you mean by not alleged and no proof??? and even that bottom section needs to be edited. And stop telling me that that image was not fine, just explain whats wrong with it instead of saying to read that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, you can barely understand English, it's amazing. I can't be bothered, I'll wait for someone else to deal with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes i am not a professional speaker, but why did you edit to understand'? Why is it amazing? Yes wait for someone. You can report me, but dont forget about your offensive and vulgar slur on a religion, you can be warned too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to report for me something that I haven't done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

what did you mean by ur BS, you offended the prophet of islam right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Velalash has been warned for 3RR. The Nicole source is unlinked, so we have no idea what book is being used. If Velalash wants the information in the lead, they can work to build a consensus for it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Ok thanks. How to proceed then with the consensus? Also, i have just seen that there is the following article Muhammad's letters to the heads of state. There are plenty of sources.

And you historyofiran, alleged means alleged. How can u say that it is not even alleged? There truth is that they disucessed with each other. You are a racist, but anyways, there have been always racists in the world. They will get punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have warned Velalash89 of the personal attack. I would ask you to strike through your personal attack and focus on content, not the contributor(s). Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

yes thats a good suggestion, not to focus on contributors racial slurs. I can see that she had problems with so many users. She gets irritated for no reason. So how do i go ahead with this consensus? Do we have to contact the adminitrators or the founders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velalash89ko (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

To HistoryofIran. Peace be upon you. I am trying to clarify some realities pertaining to the interaction between the Prophet Muhammad and Heraclius, derived from authentic narrations. I believe, though I am no scholar or historian, that an authentic chain of narration from individuals exclusively praised for their honesty is the most reliable source of evidence for any historical account. Please forgive the ancient Islamic world for not possessing any other means of preserving history, but authentic chains of narration are all we possess from that period, buttressed by the honesty, scrupulousness and sincerity of those who transmitted. It is apparent in this section that historians from the West, perhaps out of enmity from the discordance of world views, are quick to reject authentic narrations, not on the basis of their veracity, but on the basis of what they elucidate. HistoryofIran, I kindly ask you to please consider the illumination that these sources bring on a matter so sensitive to millions of people around the world, to put aside differences on this one matter, and kindly accept the clarification and clarity the source brings on a matter otherwise unknowable by any sources outside of those Islamic. I trust you have within you goodness, because every soul is a light, and I trust you shall dismiss the negativity that may stir in your being from this proposition, for negativity is nothing but that which darkens your light. I only wish for peace between the worlds, and the institution of truth in all spaces, however subtle, such as this article on a soul who would indeed like to remembered as he truly was, a pious sage and noble emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The existing article text is better sourced, more balanced, and closer to our Manual of Style. I think the existing text should be retained, not the version based on traditional narrative. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Peace be upon you. I wish slander against the Holy Prophet, sent by my Lord and your Lord to perfect our characters, was more of a concern for you, but it seems that for as long as dawn breathes, falsehood will prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, I mean no offense, but this is Wikipedia, not some religious forum. Please take this somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You're forgiven, but, God willing, I hope you learn to regret on a day before you die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftarmofthelord (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ἡράκλειος

What do you think? In classical Greek, it would be transcribed "Hērakleios" since "Ἡ" is the rough breathing + eta (long E). Of course, later on, H, due to iotacism, was pronounced closer to I (as in Modern Greek). Right now this [English] article says "Iraklios", but corresponding articles in other languages (such as the German, French, & Spanish) say "Hērakleios" Ll1324 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Siblings?

The illustration near the bottom of the article states that it depicts a sister of Heraclius named Epiphania, Martina's article says her mother was named Maria and that she was a sister of Heraclius, a brother is also mentioned in this article but not a lot of context is given to this rulers early life or relationship with his family. ★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Finding this page by Google not matching the article

On Google search, born in 'Cappadocia, Turkiye'.

Herakleios Türkiye'den değildi çünkü Türkiye yoktu (Heraklius was not from TURKEY because TURKEY did not exist.)

In the article it has, born in 'Cappadocia, Byzantine Empire', so Google preview of the article and the article don't match? Of course he was actually born in Cappadokia, Roman Empire, not the nonsense term in the article but at least it's not going full out nonsense and claiming he was born in Turkey. Middle More Rider (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Cappadocian

Cappadocians in the time of Heraclius were of Greek origin. Why do they keep changing it? 71.190.162.55 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

it is pretty much historically recognized that Heraclius was half Greek. 71.190.162.55 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Heraclius was half Greek

why does the article insist that he was o lying Armenian but yet play cryptic when it says he was Cappadocian but not Greek Cappadocian which he really was?! 71.190.162.55 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Errors

@Alainprost2, please self-revert. Your changes violate at least MOS:NDASH, MOS:GEOLINK. Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Heraclius Constantine vs Constantine III

Heraclius Constantine exists and Constantine III does not exist. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If that's your only problem, can I restore the rest of the corrections? Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Best regards. Alainprost2 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Islamic view of Heraclius - Coatrack

This section needs to be condensed per WP:COATRACK. Even though it reflects more of the perceptions of Heraclius in the later centuries than his actual life, it takes up greater space than some biographical sections like the Byzantine-Sasanian war. Too much detail is given to a purported exchange between Heraclius and Muhammad, probably to push a view that it happened. It is illogical for this to be given greater weight in Heraclius' biography than a another page with a whole section dedicated to it. Soidling (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"changed the official language to Greek"

suffice it to say Norwich does a lot better than Lygo, a tertiary source who asserts something in broad strokes and doesn't explain what it meant. Norwich (among others) does explain what it meant, and it wasn't one man campaigning to switch the empire from Latindom to Greekdom, but a natural demographic shift. Here's one of the three most important omnibus works on the Byzanties, Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 106:

The age of Heraclius marked a cultural as well as a political turning point in the history of East Rome. It was now that the Roman period ended and Byzantine history properly speaking began. Emphasis on the Greek element and the strength of ecclesiastical influence combined to give the Empire a new appearance. The early Byzantine state had clung with astonishing tenacity to Latin as the official language and it only yielded slowly and reluctantly to the steady predominance of Greek, without making any open and decisive change.

Treadgold and Kaldellis, the other two, are likewise intelligent about it.

in any case, you're not going to be allowed to directly graft new material into the lead, which is a balanced summary of the article body. Remsense ‥ 论 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is how I see it: we want to make these changes the right way for readers, and since the lead summarizes the body, there has to be a fairly significant cited discussion of this in the article body, which the lead can then briefly summarize without inline citation. Here is the issue, again: while this is certainly an important process that took place during his reign, it was not really his personal doing, so what we can't do is assign events in the age of Heraclius to being deeds of the man himself. I think specific acts on his part could be mentioned in the existing legacy section, but I don't think it would be proportional to then stick such a mention in the lead also. Remsense 🌈 论 23:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muslim-Byzantine troop movement (635-636).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that there is a "Off-topic" yellow banner in the article. There are also some uncited statements. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Heraclius

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There's an "Off-topic" yellow banner in the article from May 2025. There are also some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Iazyges: wonder if you've seen this -- might be up your street? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to do the changes (first time working on reassessment), I will need about a week to go through the sources and implement the changes. From a quick look and the comments by Z1720 (+ one of mine) are as follows:

• There a couple of statements (at end of paragraphs) without citations and another tag requesting a better source and one more that failed verification.
• The section Heraclius#Islamic view of Heraclius should be summarized. It is not completely irrelevant but it needs to be shorten as mentioned previously at the talk page.
• For consistency with previous understanding and per WP:COMMONNAME, the article needs to refer to Byzantine and not to Eastern Roman or Roman.
  • per Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ
  • see Google Ngram results that describe the emperor as Byzantine five to six times more often than Roman.

If there other issues please let me know. Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 20:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• @A.Cython: Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: I think I finished making changes, please let me know if something is still missing. While there is still room for improvement, I think the article overall is in better shape than before and perhaps it can keep its GA status. Summary of my major changes:

1. While not GA issue, I replaced the remaining <ref> with the sfn style format to segregate the reference information from the main text. I also categorized the sources by type, Primary, Books, and Journals. Uncited sources moved to Further reading section. This also helped to identify and remove duplicated references.
2. I rewrote a number of statements, fixed typos, WP:POV issues, and added missing context and relevant wikilinks.
3. I added citations to un-sourced statements or removed them.
4. The troubled section was rewritten by keeping the essence through a summary. Some material was removed as could not be kept or verified.
5. I also rearranged some of the statements to enhance the thematic cohesion of sections/paragraphs and ease reading flow.

Irrespective of the verdict, I will like to request some feedback on a pending issue and perhaps the other two editors may help in this discussion @UndercoverClassicist: and @Iazyges:. The issue is that of Byzantine Emperor vs Eastern Roman Emperor.

Editors Teotzin190 and LVDP01 keep the infoboxes of emperors (from Constantine I upto Heraclius) by having Eastern Roman Emperor at infobox, which is a redirect to Byzantine emperors. Their argument is that keep these articles consistent with Roman history periodization, similar to how it appears in the Template:Roman_emperors. Hence this edit during my improvements of the article. In my mind (and maybe I am wrong) this edit is a violation of WP guidelines for the following reasons.

1. The established consensus of the Byzantine Empire is that it starts on 330 AD long before Heraclius (r. 610–641) and it is explicitly stated in Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature that the primary descriptor is Byzantine (also in Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ): It is now the primary term, used to refer to all aspects of the empire; yes there are a couple of professors that complain but per their admission "Byzantine" is the current mainstream (e.g., see Kaldellis "Romanland" p. xii–xv). Respectable tertiary source Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (p.344) states: Byzantium or Byzantine Empire, conventional name of a medieval state that existed for more than a one thousand years. It can be viewed as a continuation of the Roman Empire inasmuch as its legal and administrative systems retained numerous Roman features; at the same time, it underwent significant transformations, evolving into a Christian and primarily Greek-speaking state centered on the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean. [...] Since there is no act formally proclaiming the inauguration of Byz., no revolution abolishing the "ancient regime", the date of its beginning remains under discussion; most scholars prefer the date of 324 (or 330), when Constantinople was founded by Constantine I The Great, or 395, when the Roman Empire was divided between the sons of Theodosios I. (added empasisis). Thus the edit and even the Template:Roman_emperors are incompatible with established consensus.
2. The issue of Byzantine vs Eastern Roman constantly appears in the relevant articles causing headaches, see in the current talk page Talk:Heraclius#Byzantine Empire and in Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_9#Well (there are more recent casesin other articles). There is no policy as far as I know that establishes at infoboxes the use of Eastern Roman Emperor, so this edit causes trouble per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE since Eastern Roman Emperor is not an accurate summary of the main body. My understanding from what I have read of previous discussions is that there was never a strict implementation of this policy because it was better to allow people to create content rather than keep fighting over terminology, though this might be an issue as the GA status may depend on this.
3. Note that the use of Byzantine in the literature is used predominately to separate the classical Romans (Latin-speaking pagans) from the medieval era (Greek-speaking Christians). It is confusing to describe Heraclius or any other emperor after Constantine I as Roman or Eastern Roman given that we have defined 330 AD as the start date of Byzantine Empire.
4. I presented above Google Ngram results that clearly show that Heraclius is described in literature as Byzantine Emperor 5–6 times more often than Roman Emperor, note that for Eastern Roman Emperor does not even register in Google Ngram because it is so rare. Thus, it should be Byzantine Emperor per WP:DUE. Other metrics clearly support this,
   • In Google Scholar the results are:
     • Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius: 40
     • Roman Emperor Heraclius: 255 (this includes the 40 by the eastern variant)
     • Byzantine Emperor Heraclius: 1390, corresponding to 34 times more popular to the eastern variant and ~5.6 times to combined results of Roman+Eastern Roman
   • In JSTOR the results are:
     • Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius: no results
     • Roman Emperor Heraclius: 2 results
     • Byzantine Emperor Heraclius: 24

Overall, I find the use of Eastern Roman Emperor at the infobox in violation of WP guidelines and I worry that the article would fail because of this (WP:GACR6#1b) but at the same time I want to avoid an edit war. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 17:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 AD unless one prefers 480 AD) when Odoacer returned the Western Empire regalia to Constantinople, declaring the Western Empire abolished and himself as King of Italy, that Eastern Roman Empire is no longer an accurate description of the remaining empire, but that might not be definitive. When contemporary writers and officials, including emperors, began to call it Byzantine is a different matter. I think we can be rather sure it was not before the Western Empire fell absent citation of a contemporary source that shows otherwise. It is a reasonable guess that it was after the reign of Justinian, though again contemporary sources would be what is needed for verification.

Note this from the article on Justinian I "A native speaker of Latin (possibly the last Roman emperor to be one)..." Fifty years after the fall of the Western Empire, Justinian attempted to restore the entire Roman Empire, with some fleeting success. I doubt that he considered himself a Greek or that his empire was "Byzantine." Again, only contemporary sources or citation of such sources in later works would confirm that.

I have trouble with the interpretation by "most scholars" in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium being that the name was changed to Byzantine as early as Constantine or Theodosius rather than simply describing the mere fact that a divided empire was established and recognized as early as the reigns of one of those emperors. In addition to my thought about the Dictionary's wording, I doubt that any contemporary writer or official thought of or called the Eastern Empire "Byzantine" as early as Constantine or even Theodosius. Again, contemporary sources or later writing citing them would be most pertinent. Also, if I recall correctly, Greek did not become the court language or language of writers until some decades after the fall of the Western Empire, maybe later, as perhaps Justinian being a Latin speaker suggests.

The bottom line in this instance is that for our purposes Heraclius is reasonably described as a Byzantine Emperor. However, if any contemporary sources show that the emperors were still referred to as Roman or Eastern Roman, it would make the article more complete and accurate to include this in the article. Or the article might correctly show Eastern Roman Emperor and refer in the article to the fact that it was later considered Byzantine because that is what it became. The accuracy of pushing "Byzantine" back before the fall of the Western Empire, or perhaps even the reign of Justinian is dubious at best and in my opinion, incorrect. Heraclius may well stand on a naming divide for the empire, but further research might be necessary for better verification.

FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 Thank you for your comments, my reply is mostly to add some context. The literature on this is issue is vast and a mess with every author giving his/her own spin and it is definitely not making us any favors. In general, there are three schools of thought; for a summary see here. Briefly,

1. Continuity school assumes that the empire being Roman all the way till the end in 1453. It heavily relies on the continuity of political institutions, but fails to address the discontinuities in culture, intellectual, urban life. Essentially fails to explain how it started (Latin-speaking pagans) and ended (Greek-speaking Christians). The following work is considered the thorn as to why the continuity school is not dominant Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History Alexander Kazhdan, Anthony Cutler Byzantion 52 (1982), pp. 429-478
2. Discontinuity school assumes that at some point the Roman Empire died and a new one started even though its citizens continued to call themselves Romans. The date of this transition is debated in literature ranging from 282 AD (all inhabitants became Roman citizens for tax collection purposes) all the way to 1204 AD (forth crusade). My understanding is that Justinian reign is a popular choice (expensive wars, far reaching reforms, wide range of buildings, plague, permanent loss of Italo-Roman population and territories) for this crossover. Nevertheless, the move of the capital (330) is also mentioned in modern literature as the transition of power from Latin-speaking to Greek-speaking domains (The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies 2008 p. 3, A History of Byzantium p.23 By Timothy E. Gregory 2010 & The Greeks, A global history by Roderick Beaton 2021 pp.250-251, and even Library of Congress). A nearby date is the Diocletian division (395) (see A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold). Another popular choice is of course the fall of Rome which happened before Justinian. As I said every author provides their own spin.
3. Evolution school is similar to Discontinuity school but it is more gradual not relying on a singular reign or event. Not yet familiar with its authors.

So long there are different school of thoughts in the literature, I do not think we can get a straight answer when Byzantium started or whether we should even consider such a term. The literature continues to use the term Byzantine to separate the classic Romans from the medieval ones, forcing us to use this term. For the current article, things are a little more simple/clear as the majority of the literature as I pointed out above points to (on average) Byzantine Emperor for Heraclius more often than any other descriptor, which is also consistent with Byzantine Empire article. Finally, if there is a change of policy, then I will be happy to comply, but my understanding is that the established policy (mentioned above) points to 330 AD for the beginning of Byzantine Empire. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 02:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to join this discussion on the infobox descriptor as it is related to the GAR concerns. To make sure my reasoning is visible in the thread (rather than scattered elsewhere), here is essentially the argument I wrote a couple of days ago:

1. I used ‘Eastern Roman’ in the infobox to place him within the late-antique framework. Eastern Roman is functionally more of a period-specific label within the broader Byzantine Empire, which is the overarching polity. Byzantine by itself implies a later, medieval context, which did not apply to Heraclius. This is a period distinction recognized in modern scholarship. For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to him specifically as an Eastern Roman emperor, while using Byzantine emperor for succeeding rulers.[1]
2. The seventh century—particularly the transformation surrounding Heraclius’s reign—is treated as the structural turning point between the late-antique Roman world and the diminished medieval Byzantine one (though Byzantine still refers to the continuous polity itself in general).[2][3][4] Because of that, my suggestion would be to explain the terminology briefly in the article itself so that the infobox reflects the historical context, rather than simply removing the term. That way readers understand the context behind it.
3. The FAQ supports the article title as the common name for the polity, but it doesn’t micromanage every infobox or periodized subarticle. The presence of separate Eastern Roman army and Byzantine army pages is a WP precedent for periodized naming. If we were to apply the Byzantine label unanimously, without considering the period-specific context, then emperors like Constantine I, Constantius II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, and Theodosius II should, in theory, be labeled ‘Byzantine emperor.’ The fact that they aren’t despite being within the time span of the Byzantine Empire (330-1453) shows how Wikipedia allows for period-specific labels.
4. Some might argue that the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 marks the pivot in labelling between Roman and Byzantine. However, when taking structural, military, and administrative factors into account, it is difficult to justify it over Heraclius’s reign, which saw:
* The end of praetorian prefectures.
* The end of the classical Roman military system (see Eastern Roman army, Late Roman army).
* The gradual shift from Latin toward Greek as the administrative language.
* Greek imperial title formally adopted (basileus).
* The replacement of the Western Roman Senate in 630 (final recorded act in 602).
* The dissolution of several Roman provinces, such as Dalmatia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Spania.

Sources referenced in the quoted argument:

* Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Heraclius" biography

* Haldon, John (1997). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

* Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Theme" entry

* Mitchell, Stephen (2007). A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284–641: The Transformation of the Ancient World. Blackwell Publishing.

My proposal, to address the mismatch flagged under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, would be to add a footnote clarifying the usage of terminology and periodization, though I am open toward whatever approach other editors feel works best.Teotzin190 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is not with the content or historical arguments. The question how can we be faithful to the whole literature (even it is a vast and a mess, i.e., contradictory). One way is through reliable WP:TERTIARY sources. Another way is through Google Ngram (or similar metric) to assess how these topics are addressed in the literature. Also note that the definition of polity] includes political institutions, and one such political institution is the emperors.

Based on Google Ngram there is a crossover. Prior Justinian reign, the emperors are described more often with the Roman descriptor, which is consistent with Donner60's observation that one does not encounter many cases where Constantine I is characterized as Byzantine, even though some tertiary sources define his reign as the beginning of Byzantium. With Justinian and later emperors, the Byzantine descriptor becomes more prevalent (see here for Justinian, see here for Maurice). Donner60 is also correct with the observation that after the fall of Rome (476) the distinction between East and West becomes meaningless; Justinian briefly recovered it but it was a shadow of its former self. So perhaps prior of Justinian the Roman descriptor is used, but we adopt the Byzantine with Justinian and later emperors. Just a thought. Let's wait and hear from the other editors. A.Cython(talk) 03:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the first paragraph of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article which follow the Heraclius article when one clicks on the link:

• The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire’s history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state. Theirs was, in their view, none other than the Roman Empire, founded shortly before the beginning of the Christian era by God’s grace to unify his people in preparation for the coming of his Son. Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During those same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as Byzantine.

In view of this Britannica paragraph and my previous comments about Justinian, I definitely would not start "Byzantine" Empire with him, a Latin speaker who "continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire". During the reign of at least three succeeding emperors of the Justinian dynasty the territory was mostly lost. The "after the 7th century" language in the article leads us to the usurper Phocas who ended the Justinian dynasty and lost even more territory, only to be overthrown by Heraclius who had to deal with wars on multiple fronts.

I suppose it could be argued that Justinian was the last of the Eastern emperors but based on the above I would put the start of use of the Byzantine Empire as the proper term with either the reign of Phocas or Heraclius. I think pushing the term Byzantine back before 476 AD is a more modern use, possibly careless, and is not appropriate. I also think that "after the seventh century" is more of an appropriate break point for use of the term even from a modern viewpoint - looking back, not contemporaneously.

FWIW the Wikipedia article on the Exarchate of Ravenna uses both the terms Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine territories in the first paragraph of the lead. More modern historians, probably for convenience to avoid continual multi-word descriptions or to avoid possible confusion, use Byzantine Empire. I am not convinced that the use of the term was used at the time or is even what historians before modern times would have used - probably thereby favoring the reign of Phocas or Heraclius as the break point between "Eastern" and "Byzantine". More research might be needed and very well could end up with ambiguity.

My conclusions (more or less): I think that "Byzantine Empire" is (1) definitely an inaccurate and anachronistic usage for the Eastern empire before 476 AD, (2) probably still inaccurate at least as how contemporaries probably viewed it (though seeming not quite right due the Eastern Roman Empire being the only remaining empire - with a little of the West still held) through (a) at least Justinian's reign and (b) probably also for the reigns of his dynastic successors up to (c) the usurpation of Phocas "who became the late Roman, or Byzantine, emperor in 602" (Britannica article on Phocas - squaring with the "after 7th century" line from the other article), and (3) almost certainly accurate from an actual status, plus more modern view looking back and possibly as contemporaries and historians before modern times described it. So that starts use of "Byzantine" as accurate not in 476 AD or with or even after Justinian, but with the reign of Phocas in 602 AD or perhaps Heraclius in 611 AD - even if contemporaries even then still considered themselves "Romans" but likely now without the "Eastern" as part of the description - and not using "Byzantine" either.

Is this confusing, possibly somewhat contradictory and inaccurate (unless broken down by the views at the time as Britannica indicates as I interpret it)? Seemingly. I favor (1) definitely no use of Byzantine to refer to the Eastern Empire before 476 AD, (2) either not using "Byzantine" until the reign of Phocas or Heraclius or using "Byzantine" only with some mention that contemporaries considered themselves "Roman" and some historians still used "Eastern Roman" at least to refer to the remaining empire before the reign Phocas or Heraclius - simply "Roman" might be most accurate, but perhaps would not be seen as such unless also explained (3) using "Byzantine" to describe the empire with the reign of Phocas or perhaps Heraclius.

Sorry for the long screed and not concluding with a single break point comment. I think this is not an easy question to answer briefly or without explanation and with a definite single answer. I hope the comments are useful and not too convoluted. I will post further only if I come across, or find time to look for, further information. Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. While there is no consensus on WP:BRITANNICA, it is generally avoided in WP especially in contentious topics. Let's say for the sake of the argument that we can rely on.

Citizens of the empire believed to be Romans, yes that is correct, but so they also thought so just before the fall in 1453. The supporters of the Continuity school, they will tell you that there is no Byzantine and in fact they will so far as to claim that it is a conspiracy theory where the modern scholarship uses the term to strip the Romanness of these people (for more see Anthony Kaldellis in Romanland (2019) p.xii). Every author to establish their career has to say something new (per admission of Kaldellis in an interview), and so there are a lot of out of the norm proposals in the literature. You pointed out Phocas as the transition point, that's interesting but is this an established widely recognized? In WP we are not in the business of picking up WP:POV, but summarize the academic consensus, as this reflected in the literature.

So far the academic consensus continues to use the the Byzantine descriptor to separate the Romans in the classical era (pagan and Latin-speaking) from the Romans (Greek-speaking and/or Christians). The established consensus in WP is that the starting date is 330 AD, when the capital moved and the Christianity become state religion, providing a clear break from the past. I have already provided WP:RS WP:TERTIARY sources,

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others.

I do not think Britannica can be viewed as reliable as the sources above (especially the handbook one that talks about the whole field itself) but for good measure here is another one:

• The Routledge handbook on identity in Byzantium 2022 Michael Stewart (editor) for intro pdf
  • p.3 the Christian state that Justinian ruled from Constantinople had changed as a political and social entity from the Latin-speaking, Italian-based, non-Christian Republic, and early imperial Roman empire, a difference that some in the sixth century CE appeared to recognise, as we can observe in Usdrila’s letter.23 Hence, this book takes as its starting point the year 330, the date of the “foundation” of Constantinople, formerly the city of Byzantium. The fourth century CE was a momentous one in Roman history, and this civic transformation was just one of many changes usually associated with the advent of the medieval Roman Empire, Byzantium. (added emphasis)

Please note that the issue raised was not on the content, i.e., what is the starting date of Byzantium, this question has been asked and answered in the Byzantine Empire article. Thus, according to established consensus of starting date and policies as I pointed out at the beginning, Byzantine Emperors start with Constantine I. This is established in List of Byzantine emperors. Clearly, there is some overlap with List of Roman emperors, which considers even the last of the Byzantine Emperors as Roman. While there can be flexibility in more specialized articles where "Eastern Roman" and "Western Roman" can be used, but as stated in the FAQ the "Byzantine" is the primary descriptor:

"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.

The definition of polity includes the emperors. Otherwise, it would be completely confusing to have "Roman Emperors" in a "Byzantine Empire". Not to mention that "Eastern Roman Emperor" directs to List of Byzantine emperors; this can be viewed as circumventing WP:DUE to promote WP:POV. Overall, I find the labeling everything as "Roman" incompatible of WP policies as I explained at the beginning. A.Cython(talk) 23:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to add a source dedicated on Byzantine emperors, starting with Constantine I (306).

• Emperors and Imperial Dynasties of Byzantium by Sviatoslav Dmitriev (2025) Oxford University Press, see page xiii. A.Cython(talk) 04:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The "correct" option might just be aligning the terminology used here with other Wikipedia pages. The Justinian dynasty are mostly called Eastern Roman Emperors, the Heraclians are mixed but mostly Byzantine. Is there anywhere that we can have a coordinated discussion about what the standard should be? Edward056686 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Justinian dynasty is mostly described as "Byzantine" not as "Eastern Roman" as I provided evidence above, it is the other pages that need to align with this. For Heraclius the evidence are even stronger. As you can see in Google Ngram results the terms Byzantine Empire and Byzantium are by far more popular than East Roman Empire. If the published literature changes so will WP, but at the moment this is an issue of applying WP guidelines and as of right now I do not see how there can be place of East Roman Empire or Emperor as a primary descriptor.A.Cython(talk) 06:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: No, all of the Wikipedia pages for Justinian emperors that I checked still have "Eastern Roman" in the infobox. It doesn't seem like there's too much consistency on Wikipedia with regards to the Byzantine vs. Eastern Roman debate. Coming up with a standard for how they should be labeled would be helpful. Edward056686 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, there is not much of consistency. As mentioned above IMO the reason is due to lack of desire to enforce this one in favor of letting people to create content. This is a good idea, but effectively it kicks the can down the road in terms of having consistency. A.Cython(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I was notified that there was a request for more comments (to be placed here, I think). My opinions are stated above but I will summarize and perhaps clarify. As far as Heraclius is concerned, I view "Byzantine" as correct. He spoke Greek and that part of the West which had been reconquered and some of what had been retained was lost. However, with the possible exception of Phocas, my opinion, based on some sources, is that before those two emperors and after 476 AD "Roman" would have been preferred by the emperors and writers at the time. I refer to the Britannica article.

They may have, but very likely didn't, consider or refer to themselves as Eastern Romans. Their goal (especially Justinian's) was to win back the Western territories. They did not reestablish an empire, only what they called an exarchates. Byzantine is wrong and an anachronism and would not have been viewed as Byzantine by Eastern emperors, and probably writers, rather that Eastern Roman, before 476 AD. So how to name the empire during period between the reign of the last Western Roman Emperor and the reign of Phocas or Heraclius is the question in my opinion.

While "Roman" would be preferred based on how they considered themselves. "Eastern" would not be quite accurate. Also, those emperors apparently had no plan to reinstate a Western emperor. But I think Byzantine could be considered premature based on the emperors through Justinian, at least, speaking Latin and considering themselves Roman. I could agree with the use of Byzantine for this period if articles noted that the emperors and contemporaries considered themselves "Roman" during this period and perhaps add for the emperors through to Justinian that they still spoke Latin. Again, I wrote somewhat more above but my conclusion here is a little more definite. As I noted earlier, a little more research on contemporary sources or modern sources which refer to the naming at the time might yield some relevant information. I do not have much time to pursue that for several weeks, at least. Donner60 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The established academic literature uses Byzantine term to distinguish pagan Roman Emperors from the Christian Roman Emperors. The Greek language was common intrrnational language throughout the empire all these years so the change in Heraclius's time by becoming the official/state language was minor compared to social and adminstative changes that happened in third and fourth centuries. Even Justinian spoke Greek (not very good but still) and most others before him as secondary language. If not mistaken Anastasius I Dicorus spoke Greek as primary language. Constantine I used it frequently and named the new capital in Greek, not in Latin. Most historians consider this (move of capital and adoption of Christianity as state religion) as a pivotal moment in the history of Roman Empire that necessitates a different descriptor. A.Cython(talk) 15:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: What are your feelings on the state of this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Uncited statements have been resolved. If editors above have a consensus that the yellow "off-topic" banner is not needed, then this can be closed as keep. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  The issue raised in Talk:Heraclius#Islamic_view_of_Heraclius_-_Coatrack was addressed by significantly reducing the size of the troubled section (from 955 to 275 words). I have not seen anyone complaining. It could be removed completely, but I am an inclusionist so I might be biased, so your feedback is needed.

  FYI the issue of Easter Roman vs Byzantine is discussed here, it appears so far that the term can be replaced by "Byzantine": P Aculeius stated that 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. After Justinian, as presented by objective metrics above and in the RfC the Byzantine term becomes dominant. I made the change .

  If there are any other issues, I am happy to try to address them. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 22:25, 28 March 2026 (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.

Gibbon

@A.Cython I wanted to raise my concern about the usage of Gibbon, who is cited four times (including one block quote) and appears to be used uncritically every time. Per WP:HISTRS, reliance on such an old secondary source risks giving undue weight to outdated historical interpretations, especially given the vast expansion of modern Byzantine scholarship over the past couple centuries. Gibbon's treatment of Byzantium was shaped by his limitations as a scholar and reflected a broader 18th-century intellectual climate that was often dismissive of Byzantium. There's a great article by Steven Runciman on this issue. It may be worth replacing these citations with more recent secondary sources or explicitely framing Gibbon as a historiographical viewpoint rather than an authoitative account. Gavingaebe (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of the issue about Gibbon. There are people who still like him. I did not touch Gibbon because it was not an issue raised in GA reassessment, but since you raised it I can look into replacing these citations. A.Cython(talk) 17:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gavingaebe: I replaced the Gibbon citations in the main body with modern citations. I kept the quote at the Legacy section, but rewrote it in a way to contrast Gibbon's claim with that of modern historians. Let me know what you think and if have another source that provides useful commentary. Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 21:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython Looks great! I think Gibbon is the perfect way to begin the Legacy section, since he's of interest as historiography. Gavingaebe (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)