Hello, Xwintqrr! 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 {{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.
There is a long-standing consensus, which reflects common and scholarly usage, against this. You can look up the repeated discussions at the archives of Talk:Byzantine Empire to that effect. Same applies to 'East(ern) Roman Empire', 'Roman Empire of the East', etc. And accordingly the articles of Byzantine emperors are to be labelled as such, not as 'Roman emperors' or as 'Roman emperors of the East'. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In scholarship, the transition between Roman and Byzantine is usually placed around the time of the great Arab conquests, so circa 650 AD. The Arab conquests, and subsequent 'Byzantine Dark Age', marked a definitive end to the cultural unity of the Mediterranean world and to 'Antiquity'. Though there was a political continuity from the Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire, the revived 'Roman Empire in the West' of Charlemagne and the Ottonians have claims on being the Roman Empire also, so it is best that Byzantium be recognised as a cultural and political entity separate from the Roman Empire as such. Urselius (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emperors before the heraclian dynasty should be labelled as Roman emperor of the east as Latin was still the official language and not Greek especially Justinian I as he was universally recognized as the last roman emperor. The label Byzantine emperor should be the label of roman emperors after the Justinian dynasty due to the transistion of the empire from Latin to Greek later during Heraclius' reign. And he also made changes like the traditional title Imperator, Caesar and Augustus he changed it to Basileius. Xwintqrr (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just sharing my opininon after looking at some few consensus, I think labeling roman emperors before the Beggining of Heraclian dynasty "Roman Emperor of the East" would make more sense as the Eastern Roman Empire still had Latin as their official language, especially when Eastern Roman emperor Zeno after the fall of the West proclaimed himself as the sole Ruler of the Roman Empire and the East like i said still had the traditional title of Imperator, Caesar and Augustus until in-late Heraclius' reign where he made Greek as the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire, promoted the Greek culture and he changed the old traditional title to Basileius. So the term Byzantine emperor would actually make more sense if it had been labeled to Eastern Roman emperors after the Justinian dynasty plus just as i said btw a little correction on my previous reply, I meant that Justinian I was universally considered as the Last Roman. Xwintqrr (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.