Talk:Latin Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Well as far as I remember from the history of my country (Bulgaria) the Latin empire had the name "RomeLia" not Romania .. I know that in english the western people like to change the names of many counries and places but still

"Rumelia" was the Ottoman name for the Byzantine Empire, I think. Maybe that's what they called the Latin Empire too, I don't know. Adam Bishop 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not any good at history and this may sound foolish but..... Weren't the Crusades initiated when the Byzantine Empire petitioned for help and Pope Urban responded. If so , why did the Crusaders sack Constaninople?
Well it's a long story...see the Fourth Crusade article. Basically, the crusaders became overdependent on Venice, which had various disputes with the Byzantine Empire. The crusaders also got caught up in a complicated political dispute that they didn't really understand (the son of a deposed emperor wanted them to help him overthrow the current emperor), and that got out of control too. Plus, the Byzantines had never really been helpful during the crusades, at least according to the crusaders - they were always seen as scheming and backstabbing, and the crusaders thought they had been abanonded by them many times. Hopefully the Fourth Crusade article explains this more fully. Adam Bishop 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name Romelia is used in Bulgarian, I think it's fair enough to accept Romania as a name of Byzantium... What I dont see in this article is the story of the Latin Empire's wars with Bulgaria... this article is all but reliable as a source, as is most of Wikipedia anyway...

Perhaps you would like to add some information about that? Adam Bishop 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Romania: According to this source "the Byzantine Empire, was in fact still the Roman Empire, known to Western Europeans, "Latins" or "Franks" at the time, as Romania, already the name of the Empire in Late Antiquity". Lots of references come up from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica search engine too.
There are also old maps using this name for the region: [1]
--KIDB 11:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Empire was referred to "Romania" (Land of the Romans) by the Pope in his speech to crusaders before the original crusade and therefore long before the Latin sack and capture of the city and the throne. Certainly, I'd be quite interested to know what the Latin Empire's proper name was (ie what it was called at the time, rather than the name later historians have given it to distinguish it from the Monarchy it supplanted). --Zagrebo 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Romania"?[edit]

A question for scholars of Latin: Does the phrase "Imperium Romaniae", as used in 1204, most precisely translate into modern English as "Empire of the Roman People" (Eastern Romans, that is, i.e., medieval Greeks) or as "Empire of the Roman Lands"?

A question for anybody: Which of the two (regardless of how phrased) do you think would be most useful to a WP reader who might come across this page in a search? Jmacwiki (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it literally means "Empire of Romania", so the land not the people (which would be Romanorum I suppose). To be honest I'm not sure what they really called it in Latin, but in French it was "Romanie", according to Geoffrey of Villehardouin (as opposed to Rome, the city). I imagine its Latin name would be easily found in some papal letter, though. I think to make it clear to readers, we should say that it was called "Romania", explain what that means, and note that it has no connection to the modern country. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I meant. (I meant to ask, "What is the most accurate English translation, or the most useful to WP readers?", not "What Latin words did they use?") But your suggestion seems pretty sound to me. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Byzantines were nearly always referred to as "Greeks" by the Westerners, never as "Romans", and the Latin title should not be translated as such. "Empire of the Roman lands" would be a slightly more accurate translation, but would still suggest more "Romanness" than it expressed. If I remember R.L. Wolff's article well (I might not; it is in the reference section of Roman Empire), the term imperator / imperium Romaniae was expressly used by the Latins in their diplomatic exchanges to avoid any suggestion of "Roman" emperorship and therefore competition with the Holy Roman Emperor, who claimed that title (imperator Romanorum, i.e. "emperor of the Romans"). Besides being the Greek name for the Byzantine empire, "Romania" was also in use as a politically neutral, purely topographical name for parts of the Balkans and/or Asia Minor (cf. also "Romagna"). I think it would be best to leave "Romania" untranslated. Iblardi (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A persuasive argument. Thanks. (FWIW, if I were the Pope or the HR Emperor at the time, I wouldn't have wanted any suggestion of "Romanness" in Constantinople, either. But that wouldn't mean I was right. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palaiologoi?[edit]

Why is there any mention of the policies of the Paleologos family in an article on the Latin Empire? Surely these belong instead in articles on the BE (restored) or on the minor BE successor states like Nicea -- that is, states that the family actually controlled. Jmacwiki (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successor to which?[edit]

The statement, "The Empire was intended to supplant the Byzantine Empire as titular successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, with a Western Catholic emperor enthroned in place of the Orthodox Byzantine Greeks", has several problems. Successive edits appear to be making this worse, perhaps in the name of (false) precision.

1. It is apparently incorrect as it stands. At a minimum, we need a reference to the assertion that it was "intended" to be any such thing!

More plausibly, it was not intended to be a titular successor at all, it was intended (after the plundering of Constantinople was finished) to function as a self-supporting state that would be more compliant with the wishes of the Italian states than the BE had been. Answering to papal authority was helpful in that regard.

2. Asserting that it was (or was intended to be) a titular successor to the "Eastern Roman Empire" does not make sense. States do not have titles, they have names.

3. There was no state even with the name ERE. The BE was simply the Roman Empire: the one and only. Yet the LE did NOT keep that name, "Imperium Romanum". It was arguably a successor state to the BE/ERE/RE -- though I do not know if most other states of the time recognized it as such (the essential criterion for it to be a successor state). But it was in no other sense a "successor" at all. Jmacwiki (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour blind compliant map[edit]

I have replaced the map with a colour-blind compliant version. One in eight white males are colour blind. Unfortunately, due to server problems, the thumbnail is not appearing correctly. This is a known problem and admins are dealing with it. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My revision has been reverted, as unfortunately being colour-blind myself, I messed up the colours during the conversion. Please can a colour-sighted person change this map so that it is distinguishable to colour-blind people. Thanks Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help with colour-blind compliance, I don't know how. Can you point me to a web site that gives guidance on colour-blind compliance, for future use? But I have corrected the aspect ration of the map, it was e-w stretched. Maproom (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix[edit]

(Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.)

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -Josve05a (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek name of empire[edit]

I think that the Greek name of empire must be added in the beginning of article. --195.24.37.106 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title Use[edit]

I do not understand why this page's main title is Empire of Romania while the references to this page and indeed the page itself is the more popularly known Latin Empire as the name for this entity. This is going out of procedure here, seeing as the Byzantine Empire is called (the popularly known but historically inaccurate title) that instead of Eastern Roman Empire, or Romania, or Basileus Romaion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.238.66 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, unless there are objections, this discrepancy comparative to the guidelines established at the Talk:Byzantine Empire page should be rectified. Sleath56 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin Empire. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_Empire&oldid=1194712335"