Talk:Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleConstantine III (Western Roman emperor) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2023.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
June 27, 2018Good article nomineeListed
March 21, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 9, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the head of Constantine III was presented to his co-emperor Honorius on the end of a pole?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 18, 2017.
Current status: Featured article


Mightn't this page cause some confusion with Emperor Constantine III (r.641), the short-lived son of Heraclius? john 05:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but there are two Constantine III, one eastern and one western. And he was not a usurper - for he was formally recognised as an emperor. John Norwich, in his Byzantine History, solves the problem by calling him "Constantius III", but why he, unlike the eleven other Constantines, should have his name treated differently, is an open question. Constantine II ruled only in Gaul and was certainly not a "Byzantine" emperor. I suggest Constantine III "west" and "east".Sponsianus 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Andre Engels has created a disambiguation page -- Constantine III -- to address this. --llywrch 16:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Whether a ruler is a usurper or legitimate is defined by his success. Constantine III was ultimately suppressed and is generally known as a usurper. As it says in the article, Honorius only recognised him for one year (409) under constraint. I see no need to change the article on this account.

I haven't read the Norwich book yet. I cannot see any excuse for calling him "Constantius III" - "Constantius" is a completely different name. --Jmullaly (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg your pardon, when I wrote the above I'd forgotten a thing. Constantius III is not just a different name, he was a completely different person, second husband of Galla Placida who co-ruled with Honorius briefly in 421. --Jmullaly (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Constitutionaly, a Roman Emperor was considered legitimate when the ruling Augustus decreed him to be one - duress has nothing to do with it. Constantine III's name was recorded in the Fasti, legitimising him and his elevation. He also cannot be degraded from the rank of co-emperor just because Honorius turned against him in 410, otherwise we'd have to remove legitimate emperors such as Licinius, just because Constantine I turned against him. Constantine III is virtually unique amongst the usurpers for gaining this official recognition, and this is noted by the fact that he is called Constantine III, not simply Constantine. (Please note - just because there was a Byzantine Emperor called Constantine III who ruled in 641 is not an indication that this Constantine was considered illegitimate. What it reflects is that the Eastern and Western Empires after 395 are considered separate entities, and that both Constantines are the third in succession in that eastern or western imperial succession). Further, Jones and Martindale in the PLRE Vol. 2 identify him as a legitimate co-emperor. Oatley2112 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note the paragraph about Geoffrey Monmouth's Arthurian legends. But Monmouth was talking about Constantine I, was he not? And there is an entry on the Contantine I Wiki page to this effect. Monmouth cannot be talking about both Constantines - or if he is there should be some acknowledgement of this. Tatelyle (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, the coin shown here was minted in Thessalonica, and so cannot be a coin of Constantine III. Can it be replaced with something more appropriate. Tatelyle (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name situation is ridiculous, two Roman emperors called Constantine III. Historians need to sort this out. I don't know how they do it, petitions? Campaigns? Committees? They need to end this 'byzantine' rubbish as well, every emperor from Augustus to Constantine XI was a Roman Emperor, including the Nicaean period when they were still current emperors, just not in control of the capital. After the Turk occupation the citizens still considered themselves Roman, and at least in parts until 1912 when the Greek navy liberated Lemnos and found the people still called themselves Roman.

The empire was always one empire, the shared rule did not change that, any emperor from east or west had the right to rule either east, either west, or the whole empire, if everyone in authority agreed - because they were Roman. E.g. Anthemius, born in Constantinople, likely to end up as eastern emperor, but shipped off take up the post of western emperor. Also, Valentinian III, given the rank of western Caesar by Theodosius II in Constantinople, then a year later made western Augustus by eastern officials, before starting his reign as western emperor (with his mother as Regent due to his age).

I think the son of Heraclius, Heraclius Novus Constantine should be Heraclius II, not another Constantine III. His brother that historians call Heraklonas or Heraclius II , (!) , should just be called by his actual name Constantine Heraclius and his relative Constans II, real name Heraclius Constantine, should be called Heraclius III. So, this Constantine III should remain named as such, as long as the other stuff gets sorted out by historians. Middle More Rider (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of death[edit]

G'day, just a quick observation. The lead and infobox provide a definitive date of death (which appears to be uncited); however, the body of the article seems a bit more vague. Can this be made more consistent? Other than that, I think it would be a solid B class article. Please ping me when/if this is addressed and I would be happy to complete the assessment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Well picked up, thank you. It turns out that 18 September was the date that his head was presented to Honorius in Ravenna. On top of a pole. So he died sometime before then but after his capture. I shall clarify. And, having turned to a book I hadn't looked at before for this article, probably expand generally.
That's a fine service you are providing. I hadn't even entered it for B class assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Date of death issue resolved. A small amount of material added. Some unencyclopedic material removed. Probably B class. If you are in the mood to assess as GA while you are passing, feel free . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, Gog, I have updated the assessment to B class. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time for GA reviews these days. Best of luck with it, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll start this in a day or two.

Gog the Mild,please check my edits/tweaks. Also you're missing some bib / source ntoes.
  • Apologies, references added by another editor subsequent to nomination. Now added to Sources.
  • Your changes look good. I have tweaked a couple of them here. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Removal of unreliable sources[edit]

@Gog the Mild: Have removed some Canduci here as well. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political players[edit]

I think I read that the main dufference between Stlicho and his successors mightbhave been his experience as a general and a politician, whereas the others were civilian "bureaucrats" ( or even Eunuchs risen to power ? ). Can this be correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22 years later[edit]

A long time ago I created this article, then walked away to other projects. So I was very surprised to see it on the Front Page! I do have some criticisms on its current state -- most of which I won't mention since I don't have the time to constructively discuss them -- but there is one point I feel should be raised: when I wrote this, I went into such detail (for the time) I worried that readers would think I invented the material, so I added two references at the end of the article. One persisted to this draft -- E.A. Thompson's article -- the other (which IMHO is the better of the two) did not: C.E. Stevens, "Marcus, Gratian, Constantine", Athenaeum, 35 (1957), pp. 316-47. Is there a reason Stevens' article was not used in this version? - llywrch (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi llywrch. Good to hear from you. I'm sorry that you don't like the article. Given that everything in the article is cited at least paragraph by paragraph and much of it sentence by sentence there is no need for overall references. I hope that no one thinks that a densely referenced FA may be made up. I cannot recall why Stevens went, but possibly because I would have struggled with a 76 year old source at FAC. There has been a lot of scholarship written or made available since November 2002 and the article needs to reflect this. Is there anything in the Stevens article which is not in the article and you think should be, or anything in the article where additionally citing to Stevens would enhance the article? Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Steven's article lays the foundation for what we know about this period, which would be apparent if read. But I'm more curious about how it fell out of this article, especially since for the first 10-12 years almost no one touched it. Yes, more research has passed on the subject -- Britannica the periodical published several articles on this period 10 years ago, IIRC -- but sometimes one should acknowledge how our understanding of a period developed. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Wikipedia. Articles sit for ages, then someone or someones become interested and work on them. I worked on this one five years ago and took it to GAN. Then, for no particular reason, I picked it up again earlier this year and took it to FAC. Re acknowledging how our understanding of a period developed, that sounds like material for an article on something like "Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire", which I think would be a good idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]