Talk:Constantine the Great/Archive 1

Roman Catholicism

Is it cool if I include that the only reason he is not considered a Roman Catholic Saint is because of sour grapes over moving the empire out of Rome? It's true, but they cloak that fact in some other drivel

Laughingskeptic

I like the new section on Constantine and Christianity for the most part, though I think it leans a little too far in the direction of asserting Constantine's conversion. I know many Catholic writers wrote about a death-bead conversion. (I am pretty sure older versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia asserted this) Others disputed this. Now based on one author with a POV (at least the source is cited -- thank you) there is a fairly strong assertion of Constantine's belief. Now I need to go find my references ... sigh.

I earlier stated that Constantine made Christianity the state religion. This was wrong. This did not happen until Theodius I. Constantine did not take Christianity further than 'state approved' religion.

?who wrote this?":

Laughingskeptic: I'm no fan of Constantine, but it sounds like you've spent more time in tripe like _The Da Vinci Code_ and _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ than in real historical sources. The debate on Jesus as human or divine neither began nor ended at Nicaea. And your statement that "up until this time such fundamental notions that we take for granted today such as whether Jesus had been an actual living/breathing human were actually undecided" is a wildly inaccurate and absurd statement.

Actually I am a big fan of Constantine and have read much about him over the years. His genius as a leader is astounding. There are several points in his life where his sheer ability to lead and convince others of his greatness permitted him to overcome amazing odds. Like all emperors, this man had many great enemies but he always came out on top. Part of the reason I believe is that he understood how to use religion to his advantage. He is a man who considered himself in charge. He was officially head of the Roman religion. He may have been the head of the Mithraic cult (even before becoming emperor) and I am certain that he considered himself ultimately in charge of Christianity. -- But don't get me wrong -- like most Emperors, he was not a nice person

You need to read more about the Council of Nicaea. The things I mentioned were in fact debated there, the Catholic Church's own documents show this. Christianity was very disorganized and the ideas behind Christianity were all over the place before the Council of Nicaea. There were Christian bishops that held that the human form was too dirty to be the vessel of God and Jesus was something other than human. There is a reason why some of the attendees of the Council of Niceae were identified as Gnostics. I am sure when they were invited they were considered to be (at least potential) Christian priests, but their ideas did not match up so when the Council was written about they were not identified as Christians.

I believe the phrase "...debate over the veracity of his faith because he was baptized only on his death bed" is misleading;there are several very good reasons to doubt his conversion, and stating only one understates the case against his conversion. Any disagreement? JoelJohnson.

I agree.

Which reasons? It is consensus among scholars today, that Constantine venerated the Christian God. Subject for debate is when that happened, and how "orthodox" his Christian faith was. Varana 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus among Christian scholars or non-Christian scholars? The very fact that Christian scholars can't agree on the details (when, how truly, etc.) means that the scholars don't have real evidence for this conversion. Christians clearly have a need to believe that the editor-in-chief of their religion was a believer guided by their God. I'm sure Christians prefer to limit the number of times they have to pull out the old 'God works in mysterious ways' adage.

Brutannica

Could someone tell me how to reorganize paragraphs? I think this page needs some reorganization. For instance, there should be a section on Constantine's pro-Christian policies, then the bit on the Sassanid Empire, then the dispute about Constantine's personal beliefs. This requires switching the order of the paragraphs and in some cases moving around sentences and such, so could someone explain how to do this please? Brutannica 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Brutannicus has miscorrected Maximian to "Maximilian"; intruded Geoffrey of Monmouth into the history (like intruding medieval Alexander tapestries into a bio of Alexander the Great; blurred the meaning of an Edict of Milan he has never looked at. I have carefully incorporated his dab on Constantius into the revised text, treating him with more respect that I expect in return.

I have resited Motters excellent new image to relate to York in the text.

I have created a subsection for Geoffrey of Monmouth. Anyone who credits him should be sentenced to read him. Wetman 23:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The English chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth"... he was Welsh, wasn't he?

Actually, I originally wrote "Maximilian," found it incorrect, and corrected it. Also, I didn't write anything about Geoffrey. But in what way did I blur the Edict, and if so, then why didn't you correct it? Also, what does "dab" mean, and you didn't incorporate anything I wrote about Constantius into the revised text (but all I did was clarify his political career!).

And does this mean that you're not interested in reorganizing the page? Brutannica 00:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's been almost a month, so I'm going to redo this. If anyone has any complaints, post them here phrased clearly. Brutannica 22:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Better fix your link to Battle of Naissus. It's now a link to Naissus. Not the same article. Wetman 09:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The link originally read Naissus, so I just assumed there was no link for Battle of Naissus. Brutannica 21:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The link Naissus links to the city of Nis (historical Naissus) with its history. The link Battle of Naissus links to the battle, but "Naissus" is all that's required in the context of the text.

Wetman

"an incomplete acceptance of Christianity to a modern view was his willingness to wage wars in the name of a religion that preached peace and his notorious cruelty" This is very sweet. Is it really as naive as it appears? Why is this non-historical tripe considered "Neutral Point of View"? So smugly self-serving... Sunday School! Wetman 21:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• sigh* Well, the fact is that I don't understand how you can reconcile Christian doctrine with war. Constantine fought battles in the name of Jesus, even though as far as I know he preached peace and kindness, etc. I don't think Constantine could have taken Christian teachings to heart if he behaved the way he did (like a Roman general). I think it could be used as an argument that he wasn't really Christian. Maybe it is POV, but I think it's worth stating (somehow) and I was stumped at how to do this. Apparently I didn't get it right. Brutannica 23:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grown-up expectations about what proper Christian attitudes to warfare in the 4th century might entail are built upon documents leading up to the 4th century, as well as contemporary documents. Contemporary in this sense means contemporary with Constantine I. What you and I may think is "nice Christian behavior" is less interesting-- and quite irrelevant. Wetman 01:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about Christian endorsement (or whatever word you wish to use) of warfare before Constantine, especially since in the article itself it mentions soldiers thinking of the religion as "womanish" and military service as not an occupation for overt Christians. Unless someone else pipes in, I will remove the offending passage, however, since I don't want the fight to progress. Brutannica 05:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not about "winning." The legionaries' cults were solidly of Mithras and of Isis. Details in individual hagiographies may be doubtful, but there is a pattern in the vitae of highly mythologized "soldier saints" of the early (especially Eastern) church. The theme (Saint Sebastian e.g.) is that when they convert, their own soldiers turn on them and they are martyred. You must have read some of these. Women were the main financial support of the early Christian Church, donating properties, villas etc. "Womanish" wasn't just plucked out of the air. Wetman 05:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Portent

Current text is third-hand : "an omen — a fiery cross (or chi and rho) in the sky, with the inscription "By this sign shalt thou conquer" — " The inscription was IHS, interpreted as In Hoc Signo, I think. Can we get to the sources for this. Lactantius? --Wetman

"Historical Impossibility"?

"(The Memorial has been emended to address three emperors, Valentinian II (died 392), Theodosius I, and Arcadius (began to rule 395), a historical impossibility."

Actually the adress is probably to three Augusti. Arcadius was named co-ruler of his father and Augustus in January, 383 as per his own article. So the adress to the three Augusti could have been written anywhere between 383 and 392 . User: Dimadick

Check the article to make sure it reflects this, and if not edit boldly! --Wetman 19:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not an expert on Constantine

I am by no means an expert on Constantine. But I do know enough to see a lot of this "stuff" comes from reading or copying one book by those who must think they are historians. It would be nice to see a list of sources. Where is some of this "stuff" coming from? You guys (A woman would be wise enough to stay out of this circus) are friggin' easy. Don't you question anything you read? This is a mess and boring as hell. Talk about FAITH! Nope, I ain't gonna fix it! Charlie 26 Apr 05 Oh, a word to the wise, people tend to believe the first things they read. Convictions are created quickly. The ancient past is remote, ill-documented and selective. Be cautious.

Umm...what specifically do you object to? john k 15:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that "one book" listed at References, for a start? --Wetman 16:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added one at "Further Reading", at least it is a start. I didn't see anything listed as "References". The first chapter of Constantine warns about expecting to find "the truth" in the ancient world. An ancient historian strives for objectivity. The so-called "truth" is an educational guess at best. Things are lost, new things are discovered, and from what I have observed over the past 40 years things are happily blown out of proportion to construct comfortable quick answers. In reality as more "stuff" comes foreward the more confusing things become. Skeptics (if you can call them that) are just as bad or worse than the naive when they tread in the ancient world. I am not a professional ancient historian, but I've read enough works of professional historians to recognize gibberish. This entry is poor and gives selective quick answers. It just ain't that way. I love studying the ancient past. It deserves fairer treatment than this. If you are not in love with the ancients you shouldn't write about them. Especially when you know you are projecting the present. Charlie I'm outta here! 2 May 2005

Again, what specifically is your objection? You can't just say (at some length) that "this entry is poor" and then provide no actual details of problems with the article. john k 23:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That said, the article is rather problematic - there's far too much concern with the history of Christianity in ways that don't relate to Constantine directly, to the exclusion of a detailed recounting of Constantine's life. Some of the statements also seem kind of dubious - for instance, that it was only the Donation of Constantine which made people think that Constantine became a Christian. Other parts seem to be from the opposite POV, as well. So, yeah, the article is problematic. Charlie hasn't been an especially useful critic, though. john k 23:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I have clarifed a few things as best as I could (Pictures are always nice) and added "confusion and the unknown" where I think they belong. I love the mystery of not being able to "know" things from the ancient world and learning new things. 5 May 2005 Charlie

Any confirmation of vivid detail?

New text: He began giving his own sermons in the palace before his court and invited crowds. Exerting his absolute power, the army recited his composed passages, in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. The power and wealth of the clergy grew. They took over the courts and heard all civil suites. There was no appeal. The clergy enjoyed such benefits that restrictions to join them began in 329. Eusebius? Lactantius? Restrictions? Massed declamations? Juridical role for clergy? --Wetman 19:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Check Constantine-Ramsay MacMullen, Chapter 9, Nicaea. He does not point out his exact source per item, but I'll bet it is "The Life of Constantine" by Eusebius. (At least in the $40.00 range, lots and lots of pages) Since he identified this book in this chapter, though Lactantius and the Divine Institutes, what ever that is, are mentioned. MacMullen uses a lot of inscriptions too. Kazuba 16 May 2005. Tried to track the Eusebius book on line, but could only find where copies are located. Not many. Relax. The statements just before mine come from the same exact book and I didn't write them. Love those details. Kazuba/Charlie

17 May 05. Hello again Wetman, If I do not hear from you, or any one else today, tomorrow the 18th, I am going to replace what you edited out. (Gotta move on in this fascinating book). As you've taught me "Edit Boldly". Certainly it makes sense with the previous information we have on Constantine. He's got a big head and gone a bit over the edge. Remember this is ancient history. The Association of Ancient Historians says Ramsay MacMullen is the best! They are the experts, the pros; not me. I'm a just grunt who dabbles in ancient history.(Deception seems to be my cup of tea). This is not my field of expertise. I can no longer even read Latin. How about you? (Used to be pretty good at it 49 years ago: Amo, amas, amat, puella) Is there more faith in ancient history and the records of the past than religion? (Interesting the oral teachers of the ancient world did not trust written records. Isn't weird now we do not trust oral traditions. We prefer written ones. They're truer?.. Gulf of Tonkin Incident...Kazuba

If the source is MacMullen, cite him (MacMullen 19xx). --Wetman 15:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the page

This page is clearly pro-christian. It states that Constantine defeated a rival because he is christian, among pther things. We can argue about his christianity, but I think it's unfair to say that he defeated another general because he was christian and his rival were not.

      Constantine attributed his victory to Christianity. And it most likely helped him by uniting his soldiers and upping    there morale.

I have been misunderstood

It looks like I didn't get my meaning across here. That Constantine was the "Christian God's instrument" was supposed to be understood that this is "what was the popular view from the victorious people of Rome at this time in the 4th century". This distorted thought led to the extreme. (I think it is important to mention to non-Christians and to Constantine, in the beginning, the God of the Christians was just another God).

When armies meet each other, it is propagandized that the opposing army is demonic, as compared to your side. This is especially true in 4th century Rome.(and still today) Ancient people strongly took for granted there were supernatural powers, visions, hexes, miracles, sorcery, etc at work. Each side has their soothsayers. Each promotes the idea that God (or the Gods) is on their side. Each army thinks of themselves as the good guys. The winner of the battle seems to automatically assume they were victorious because the Gods (or the God) was on their side and this is emotionally supported by the populace. The loser had to be demonic.

By use of the imagination and turning the tables around, one could say The Nazis and the Japanese defeated the United States and its allies in World WarII because God was on their side. Pagans did not consider themselves as atheists they believed in the Gods. The Pagan Gods or the "Christian" God must surely be on the winning side. Demons on the losing side. This is drivle, but we know from the surviving writings of ancient Christians this was the popular believe in the Roman Empire about Constantine and this is what he believed of himself. If you can edit my material to convey what I think you know I'm driving at here in better words be my guest. I apologize for my ignorance. I'm only a grunt I try to do my best. I ain't no writer. User:Kazuba 12 Jun 05

Well, I tried to clarify things this morning. I am hoping you will remove your objection flag. (I guess you are the one who can do this. This stuff is still very new to me). It's your call. Thanks for not blowing my stuff away and giving me a chance to fix it. It is not easy for me to write. User:Kazuba 11 Jun 05

Removing Objections

I've removed my objections on the article. I read it again and although I have some minor objections in passages such as "where she (Helena) discovered the True Cross and established basilicas." I Think you sould add an "allegedly discovered" there.

But your article is really good and mostly fair, I was unjust to dispute it's neutrality. I should have only written down my disagreement in the discussion page before 'labeling' it as not neutral.

I'm sorry if I caused you any trouble. And I'm sorry for my bad english. I'm Brazilian :)

In my opinion, Constantine was not really christian, he was a roman of his time (they were very superstitious), who adopted parts of a foreign cult as romans always done. He gave religious freedom to all his subjects, but the christian church was very organized and quickly took control of the empire's government. After that, the 'religious freedom' they asked for was abolished and they persecuted pagans and forged the "Donation of Constantine" to support their claims.

Thanks Zamba

It looks just about everyone in the ancient world took miracles, visions, soothsaying, sorcery, and magic spells for granted. This is just the way people were. They didn't believe in these things. They KNEW they MUST be TRUE. They were people of their time and place. For the most part you couldn't tell a Christian from a Pagan. They merged together. We can only guess about them. Ancient history is remote and ill-documented. Thanks for saying hello. Make yourself a User and Talk page. Your english is great! Thanks for dropping the label. User:Kazuba 14 Jun 2005

Plague -> suspicion of literacy?

From the article:

A suspicion of literacy and higher learning which began at least a century before had grown. These may have been the results of the fear and high mortality rates caused by the first and second outbreak of the Antonine Plague (165 - 180 and 251 - 266 respectively).

I don't understand. Could someone elaborate on how this suspicion grew from the Antonine Plague?65.95.44.145 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Antonine Plagues: It would seem that almost immediately after the Antonine plagues there came a suspicion of higher learning. This may be due to the anxiety caused by the high mortality rates of these plagues. We know very little about these plagues and there effect on the survivors. We do know after them literacy, science and mathematics were looked on as being dangerous, perhaps even dark sorcery by the less informed and illiterate. There is a good chance the plagues were thought to be punishments that came from the Gods because man sought knowledge. 17 Aug 2005Kazuba (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias Check

I'd like somebody to check that this article confirms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The section on his "Other Acheivements" seems to carry a particularly strong pro-Christian bias. Dewrad 19:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the diatribe called "Folly and betrayal of reason". It was visibly biased against Christianity and at many points obviously factually incorrect. Str1977 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Good call- commentary on anti-intellectual bias (or otherwise) of the times isn't really appropriate for an article about the life of Constantine. In addition, most anti-pagan discrimination was instituted during the reign of Theodosius rather than that of Constantine. Dewrad 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The bias can work both ways. Some christians may whitewash certain historical occurrences unless challenged on it. There isn't just this big "anti-christian" bias out there, there's also a christian attempt to portray people like Constantine as noble, just, and virtuous people, and thus cover up or omit any evidence of religious intolerance and persecution against pagans by such people. Of course anyone who is Sainted is going to have his or her actions whitewashed in history. There's also often an attempt to portray people like Constantine (though maybe not Constantine himself) as the victims of persecution but to ignore when such people are actually the proponents of persecution. --Lucavix 11:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a few remarks:

Yes, bias can work both ways. However, what I removed was not IMHO quite biased (and the headline makes that all the more clear) but clearly, as Dewrad posted, off-topic in an article on Constantine.

Constantine is not considered a saint by the Catholic Church. (Saints' history need not be withwashed - no one is faultless, not even saints). Anyway there's not need to whitewash anything. Constantine had his virtues and his vices. All should (and are, IMHO) included. If he had persecuted pagans, it should be in there, if not, then not.

Unfortunately, the post-mortem persecution of historical persons does exist. There is not only whitewashing but also blackwashing. Str1977 11:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hanging

The User:68.41.141.167 posted on my talk page:

Why did you remove my details on crucifixion,{Date} hanging, burning at the stake and the shedding of blood and make things so general? Please reply in the discussion page for Constantine the Great.

He is referring to this edit: [1]

I reverted back to the previous wording "Crucifixion was abolished because of religious reasons, but was replaced with hanging, to show there was Roman law and justice."

For the benefit of 68.. and whomever it may concern, here are the concerns I had:

• "Crucifixion, to exhibit there was Roman law and justice, was abolished ..." - this implies that the abolition was aimed at exhibiting that there was Roman law and justice. Is that what you wanted to say? If so, please provide some reference for that. I took the "Law and justice" passage in the previous version to say that though crucifixion was abolished, another (less gruesome) penalty replaced it to deter criminals by showing that "justice was done"
• "...replaced with burning at the stake and hanging" - from what I know and have consistently heard about this, crucifixion was replaced by hanging. Other penalties are other issues. Do you have a reference for the "burning"? Was it a new penalty in 337? I never heard of that.
• "Omitting the shedding of blood and any similarity to the death of the Christ became preferred by the religious." - this is poorly worded (especially the term "the religious"). However the gist was already in the previous wording "religious reasons". However, this can be made clearer, I will have a shot at it.

Str1977 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

68... (Gave up), I checked your link and found that burning was already in use in certain cases in the 1st century. And I can't see any similarities between burning and crucifixion - in contrast to hanging and crucifixion. Str1977 10:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Victoria

I moved the following stuff to the talk page. It is unclear what this has to do with the Emperor Constantine I, as this refers to events after his death.

After Constantine's death, when the Altar of Victory was desecrated and removed from its place of honorin the Senate House, the Senate deputized Symmachus, prefect of Rome, to appeal to the Emperor for its return. Symmachus publicly characterized the late Emperor Constantine's policy, in a plea for freedom of religion written between 383 and 392:

"[Constantine] diminished none of the privileges of the sacred virgins, he filled the priestly offices with nobles, he did not refuse the cost of the Roman ceremonies, and following the rejoicing Senate through all the streets of the eternal city, he contentedly beheld the shrines with unmoved countenance, he read the names of the gods inscribed on the pediments, he enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites. The divine mind has distributed different guardians and different cults to different cities. As souls are separately given to infants as they are born, so to peoples the genius of their destiny." (Possible Christian insertion in italics.)

—Medieval sourcebook: "The Memorial of Symmachus, prefect of the City".

Str1977 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted external links

The editor who deleted the following external links has made similar deletions at many other articles, including links to on-line text of many Early Christian writers:

• The Edict of Milan AD 313
• Letters of Constantine: Book 1, Book 2, & Book 3

Discussion of this behavior, which would have been routinely reverted as vandalism if it were from an anonymous IP, may be found at Talk:Papias. --Wetman 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantine the Greats Ethnicity

There are people who say Constantine the Great was Illyrian/Albanian, Greek/Anatolian, Ethnic Roman etc, Does anyone know or have any sources which can confirm what his ethnicity/s were? thanks E-mail adress 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear E-mail (a funny name, isn't it),

I don't have positive knowledge about ethnicity in the narrower sense. I think I read somewhere that :he or his father were Illyrian. Greek is another possibility, but I don't know how hard these borders :are. He certainly was a Roman by citizenship, but you are talking ethnicity. What is out of place is :modern terms like Albanian (yes, the Albanians derive themselves from the Illyrians, but that doesn't :make the Illyrians Albanians - just as Goths and Vandals were not Germans in the modern sense). Hope :that helps a bit. Str1977 11:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All sources on both Constantine's father (Constantius I Chlorus) as well as his mother Helena are quite unreliable in this regard. Ethnicity is something the Later Romans did not care much about. On Constantius' origin, we don't know anything for sure. Generally, Illyria is assumed as his birthplace (i.e. some place in Illyria), though that assumption is mostly based on the fact that many high-ranking officers of the army (like his later Tetrarch colleagues) came from Pannonia or Illyricum. That doesn't say much about ethnicity, though, as "Illyria" in this context is a very broad term, and it's not unlikely that Constantius' father was a soldier as well, and could come from any part of the Empire. That Constantius descended from the emperor Claudius Gothicus, is a later fabrication of his son.

Helena is usually said to having been born in Drepanum near Nikomedeia. I've no idea what that would say about her ethnic origin.

Generally, we face two difficulties: Both of his parents come from a social background which was prone to be forgotten or omitted by ancient sources. Second: in a multi-ethnic society like that of Late Rome, ethnicity was not very important.

Conclusion: We simply have no idea.

Not that it would matter much if we knew. Varana 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, he was obviously a Roman citizen born in southern Serbia, Nis (or Naissus in Greek) which was part of a broad area called Illycirum (an administrative area much larger than what was considered 'ethnic Illyria'. He was son of Constantius who is thought top be a general of Greek origin and grandson of Prokopios (a very Greek name). His mother Eleni (St Helena) was from a village near Nicomedeia (Izmit) and obviously a Greek speaker. So yes, Constantine's ethnicity was at the very least part Greek.00

total nonsense.happy greek trolls try to claim everyone "greek" his father was not a "greek"at all. greeks disappeared from the world at that time. no body called themselves greek. at that time all area became illycirum which has more connection with albanians than greeks.also dont forget that romans took over all the area . second thing is , he was born in serbia . so what is next , every body will call this roman emperor a serbian? not that i have anything againts serbians .. but all i am trying say is he was a roman .roman as much as he can be .anything else seems kinda unrealistic and funny. also romans did not realy care much about race .any body who lived under the roman empire considered as roman , so he was a roman nothing else . thats it people

---

Probably in the past of his family, Constantine the Great had a mixed ethnic origin as did most of the Balkanians. But on the male line, he was of Hellenic origin (Greek), just like Alexander the Great. He was born in Nis (today Serbia), from which he traveled around the whole Roman Empire because of his career. The Serbian Museum of History, teach that Constantine the Great was of Hellenic ethnic origine, some believe that he may have been Thracian who ancestors was hellenised ... (Unlike others who think he may have been of English, Albanian or Latin origin ... for which there is no evidence)

Church book′s from the time of Constantine the Great, which are writen by people who was clouse to Constantine perssonaly. He, and his mother are considered as Saint for Christian, Greek′s and other Ortxodoh churches from Balkan hawe originaly dated ″biographical-ethnical″ teaching (documents from the time of Constantine the Great), about first Christian emperor Constantin (with ancestors) and his mother Hellena... That′s methodology how and why we know from church documents who of the Popes, episcopes, emperors... hawe Latin, Illyrian, Hellenic, Slavic, German, Franks, Jewish, Asyrian, Albanian... ethnic origine.

Ps. Constantine the Great can not be an Albanian because the Albanians were settled later when the Roman (New Roman) Empire was officially Christian. Albanians and Illyrians are not the same people. The Illyrian language was spoken (the longest) with the Serbs in Dalmatia, where the last man who spoke the Illyrian language died in the last century. Also, most Albanians do not have Albanian ethnic origin today, because during the Ottoman rule, Albania, Bosnia, Epirus ... served to settle various Islamic sects from the Middle East, which carried out janisseries over Christians (mostly converting Albanians, Serbs and Greeks, than Romanians, Illyrians...) for 500 years of Ottoman rule.

That is why, unlike other Islamic countries, mainly in Albania and in neighboring Serbia and Greece there are Bektashi Muslims (Albanians). Who were expelled from the Middle East because the Sharia Law in past prohibits them, by condemning them to be some kind of occultist sect. Today they are also forbidden or have never existed for over 1000 years in other Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran...

Until communism came to Albania and Balkan, Bektashi in Albania (who were ruled over other people in Albania), and descendants of Islamized children of all nations of Balkan Christians who grew up with them consider it self as religius not national group, meeaning that they were not ethnophilists. Only they have strange attitudes about the spread of religion, why they had problems with the Hellens (Greeks) and Slavs (Serbs)... After fall of communism and prohibition of religion, they find a big problem of Identity and history. That′s reason why some Albanians today are confused about diference betwen Albania in New Roman empire (with Constantinople, not Rome) and Albania in Ottoman empire. Because bektashi ″Albanians″ are adopting historian figures of Albanian, Hellenic, Illirian, Slavic, Latin... origine.

"Anti-Semitic"

Dear Humus, no, no offense, but I have to disagree with lumping together various laws under the "anti-Semitic" label, as well as dividing these laws into a simplistic "positive" vs. "negative" (or "good" vs. "bad" dichotomy). This doesn't work in regard to the slave circumcision law, as I explained in my edit summary. Also, the separation of Easter and Passover has nothing anti-Semitic about it, though Constantine doesn't mince his words in his letter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not what I meant, but fine, no dichotomy. Since Jerusalem issue is not related to the rest of the sentence, I took the liberty to remove "but" and separate it into a new line. For the rest, please see Talk:First Council of Nicaea#Antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic is an inappropriate term for the ancient world, I think. Personally, I would prefer to avoid it for discussion of anti-Jewish actions prior to the development of racial anti-semitism in the 19th century. But at the very least we should be careful about using "anti-Semitism" as synonymous with "anti-Jewish" when discussing the Emperor of an ancient state which included millions of Aramaic- and Arabic- speakers who were not Jewish. john k 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

John, please check 1) the definition of Anti-Semitism, 2) his speech (a fragment is in the article) and 3) the discussion at Talk:First Council of Nicaea#Antisemitism where even those who dispute that the decisions taken during that particular council's were antisemitic, don't have a problem conceding that Constantine was an antisemite. Language of the subjects have nothing to do with this. This is about Christianity distinguishing itself from Judaism and other "heresies" and becoming the official state religion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just realized why you could write "Aramaic- and Arabic- speakers". It is a common mistake, see Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic is certainly an inappropriate term prior to Wilhelm Marr, but Humus didn't isert it into the text, naming the link to "anti-Semitism" differently. However, to call all these laws anti-Semitic is not accurate. And even the letter on the easter date, despite some harsh words, is IMHO not really anti-Semitic - it merely points out religious differences and advocates separation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not saying that since Marr came up with the term (really a misnomer that stuck) in the 19th century, the phenomenon did not exist prior to that. As for "religious differences", it seems Constantine had more political than religious agenda, but his motives for hatred do not matter. Please see the definition of the term and the history of the phenomenon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that AS can properly only used for a phenomenon originating in the 19th century ("racial" hatred of Jews) and for which Marr coined the term AS to distinguish it from older, non-"racial" hatred of Jews. Now, unfortunately, people are sloppy and talk about AS in regard to that earlier hatred of Jews. WP reflects that sloppy usage and hence there is one article on AS which encompasses other hatred of Jews as well. I accept that usage, although it's wrong, but I advocate using better, more accurate terms in specific instances, e.g. not saying AS in regard to Constantine. I think you agree since you your link to the AS article was called "anti-Jewish". (PS. Believe me, I am well informed about the history of the term.) So much for the terminology issue.

However, I reject lumping all these laws together under "anti-Jewish" - an encyclopedia should be more than name calling.

Regardless of C's motivations (and I cannot see how his actions make sense without a shred of religious motive), what he stated in his letter was that Christians should not rely on Jews to determine the date of their supreme festival, because they were 'spritually blind' and also 'responsible for the crucificion' (and the latter bit is the only remotely anti-Jewish part of all this).

Finally, your adding a link to a supposed main article is wrong. If we had an article called "Constantine and the Jews" it would be the correct main article for this section. We do not have such an article since the topic is probably to small to merit an article. Anyway, currently it doesn't exist so we cannot link to it. "Christianity and anti-Semitism" is certainly not a suitable replacement, as it encompasses much more than Constantine (Christianity), as it didn't even contain Constantine until you included him (in an unsuitable section) and since it, according to the title covers only the negative part of a relationship that has both positive and negative elements and runs both ways. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Str, you might be surprised but I agree with you on most points. Unfortunately we are stuck with imprecise human language. If you think that {{seealso}} is better than {{main}} in this case, I won't object. Thanks.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My intention in to improve WP not ruin C's reputation and I have no intention to pursue this further. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the 13th Apostle

Why is there no mention in this article that Constantine is called the 13th Apostle in the Greek Orthodox Church[2] [3] [4]?

Another reference: Orthodox Church in America "He is called "the Great," for he was a zealous champion for the purity of Orthodoxy. In the Sixth Ode of the Canon for today's Feast, he is referred to as "the thirteenth Apostle." XXX

You don't need to provide more referenes - it is already included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, for the heck of it, here's another one: Schaff's History of the Christian Church: "Soon after his death, Eusebius set him above the greatest princes of all times; from the fifth century he began to be recognized in the East as a saint; and the Greek and Russian church to this day celebrates his memory under the extravagant title of "Isapostolos," the "Equal of the apostles."55 The Latin church, on the contrary, with truer tact, has never placed him among the saints, but has been content with naming him "the Great," in just and grateful remembrance of his services to the cause of Christianity and civilization." Note 55: "Comp the Acta Sact. ad 21 Maii, p. 13 sq. Niebuhr justly remarks: "When certain oriental writers call Constantine " equal to the Apostles,’ they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a ’saint’ is a profanation of the word."

By the way, there is absolutely nothing in the current article about Constantine being called the Thirteenth Apostle. There certainly should be. Also it should be mentioned that he is in the list of Equal-to-apostles. XXX

1. Could you please sign your posts. 2. I reverted my accidental self-revert and also included isapostolos. I hope this settles the matter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantine a Catholic Saint

I have edited the article to note that Saint Constantine the Great is a saint in the Catholic Church as well.

All the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite celebrate his feast on May 21, just as the Eastern Orthodox do.

In Catholicism, a man is considered a saint of the Church if he appears on any of the calendars of the 23 autonomous ritual Churches which make up the Catholic communion.

Source?--Panairjdde 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm not sure if he is a Catholic saint or not. This link lists him: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731 St. Constantine the Great Feastday: May 21 337 Junior Emperor and emperor called the “Thirteenth Apostle” in the East. The son of Constantius I Chlorus, junior emperor and St. Helena, Constantine was raised on the court of co-Emperor Diocletian. ...

Another reference: http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug1997/wiseman.asp#F2 Can you tell me how many saints there are? That is a difficult question to answer. In the first eight or nine centuries there was no formal process of canonization. ... It was not until 993 that the first official canonization took place. It was then that Pope John XV declared Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg a saint. The original edition of Butler’s Lives of the Saints, published between 1756 and 1759, had 1,486 entries. The 1956 revision contained 2,565. Butler’s Lives is now undergoing another revision. Since not all the new volumes have yet been published, I cannot tell you how many biographies or saints will be listed.

Acta Sanctorum

If I'm reading Schaff correctly, as cited above http://ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch01.htm , Note 55: "Comp the Acta Sact. ad 21 Maii, p. 13 sq. Niebuhr justly remarks: "When certain oriental writers call Constantine " equal to the Apostles,’ they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a ’saint’ is a profanation of the word."" I read this to say that Constantine is listed in the Acta Sanctorum, under 21 May, page 13. Mr. Niebuhr, Barthold Georg Niebuhr?, a protestant?, strongly objects to the listing.

Like I told you all, Constantine is not listed in the Roman Calendar; he is, however, in the calendar of the various Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine rite. For just one example, here is the liturgical calendar, containing every day's saints, for the Melkite Catholic Church: http://www.melkite.org/menaion.htm

Under May 21: "Commemoration of the Holy and Glorious Sovereigns, the Equals of the Apostles Constantine and Helena"

I also have in my personal posession official liturgical prayer books of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America and the Ukranian Catholic Church. These all have commemorations of Saint Constantine the Great on May 21, with the exact same prayers used by Eastern Orthodox. —This unsigned comment was added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs) .

You failed providing a reference for this. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not consider him a saint. Neither the Roman Catholic Church makes any reference to Saint Constantine. Up until you provide a reference, this will be removed. Adn sign your edits. --Panairjdde 14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I *did* provide documentation, from the official website of the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton! (See my comments above!) Check here again under May 21: http://www.melkite.org/menaion.htm. The online Catholic Encyclopedia is silent on this matter, and in any event when discussing liturgical matters it does so from the perspective of Latin Catholicism; I already stated that Constantine is not listed on the Roman calendar. BUT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY SANCTORAL CALENDAR USED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, as is demonstrated by the above link to the Melkites. For another source, I'd direct you to this expert-answered question from EWTN: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=311200&Forums=25&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=Constantine&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Constantine *is* a Catholic saint, venerated publicly as such by all 15 Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite.

DominvsVobiscvm 09:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you wrote that he is a saint for Catholic Christians, forgetting to put a note in which you had to wrote that the vast majority of Catholic Christians does not consider him a saint. Thank for your contribution.--Panairjdde 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the question was about the *Roman Catholic Church*. Is there any evidence for a *Roman Catholic Saint*? If the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and other certain eastern church's recognizes him, then perhaps that should be clarified in the article, rather than generalizing. -- Stbalbach 15:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys still don't get it. When a person is accorded placement in any of the official sanctoral calendars of the Catholic Church, he/she is a Catholic saint. Period. Public liturgical veneration is limited to the autonomous ritual Church(es) which have a public cultus of the saint, but the saint himself is a Catholic saint. No qualification is needed, unless one if referring specifically to liturgical veneration. No one would say, for example, that Catherine of Siena, Maximillian Kolbe, Ignatius Loyola, and others were saints "to most Catholics" or "to some Catholics". They are Catholic saints--Period.--despite the fact that they do not receive liturgical veneration among the Eastern Catholic Churches (They are Latin-rite saints).DominvsVobiscvm 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You say that if any Catholic Church says a person is a saint, than he is a saint. But you say that Catholic Encyclopedia "in any event when discussing liturgical matters it [CE] does so from the perspective of Latin Catholicism," and CE does not consider him a saint. On the other side, you say "that Catherine of Siena, Maximillian Kolbe, Ignatius Loyola [...] are Catholic saints--Period.", but that they are not venerated in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Furthermore, I know (I know) that in Roman Catholic Church a Saint must be recognized either by tradition or officially, and you did not provide any reference that Constantine is a traditional or official saint of the Roman Catholic Church. As regards Eastern vs. Latin Catholicism, I respect everyone, but a reference to Catholic Church is almost universally meant as a reference to Roman Catholic Church (and infact the first article is redirected to the second), so we should use the words in the commonest way, and specify what is what, distinguishing between the two rites. --Panairjdde 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. As I noted, the old Catholic Encyclopedia is silent on the matter, and was written at a time when mainstream Catholic respect for the Church's Eastern heritage was at a low ebb. As well, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official document of the Church; the various sanctoral calendars *are* official. As well, the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" often does refer to the Catholic Church as a whole, insomuch as the phrase is defined as "any Christian in communion with the Pope of Rome." This is, in fact, the sense in which the artice "Roman Catholic Church" treats the subject. Hence, Constantine is a Catholic saint and no qualification is nedded unless one is referring to public liturgical veneration.DominvsVobiscvm 18:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are saying that Constantine is not an official saint of the Roman Catholic Church. And Constantine is not a Roman Catholic Saint! The fact that is not nominated anywhere in official Roman Catholic Church documents can't be used as a sign that he is a saint! Get real! You want to say he is a saint for the Melkite Catholic Church, so say it, but you did not provide any reference he actually is for the most prominent Catholic Church, the Roman one. If you keep failing in providing this reference, I'll remove the reference from the article, this thing has been going for too long.--Panairjdde 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh* If we define "Roman Catholic Church" as "that Church composed of all Christians in communion with the Pope of Rome," then yes, Constantine is a Roman Catholic Saint. If we are referring to the "Latin Church," then no, Constantine is not a saint of the Latin Church, although he is a saint of the Catholic Church.DominvsVobiscvm 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I already posted this, but seems like it bears repeating:

One Roman Catholic source:

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug1997/wiseman.asp#F2

"Can you tell me how many saints there are? That is a difficult question to answer. In the first eight or nine centuries there was no formal process of canonization. ... It was not until 993 that the first official canonization took place. It was then that Pope John XV declared Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg a saint. The original edition of Butler’s Lives of the Saints, published between 1756 and 1759, had 1,486 entries. The 1956 revision contained 2,565. Butler’s Lives is now undergoing another revision. Since not all the new volumes have yet been published, I cannot tell you how many biographies or saints will be listed."

So, there is no official definition for saints who existed before the ninth century, other than perhaps Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints which is based on the Acta Sanctorum. According to Schaff's Church History, Constantine is in there, under May 21, page 13.

Also, a second Roman Catholic source:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731

"St. Constantine the Great Feastday: May 21 337 Junior Emperor and emperor called the “Thirteenth Apostle” in the East. The son of Constantius I Chlorus, junior emperor and St. Helena, Constantine was raised on the court of co-Emperor Diocletian. ... Constantine was the most dominating figure of his lifetime, towering over his contemporaries, including Pope Sylvester I. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, gave extensive grants of land and property to the Church, founded the Christian city of Constantinople to serve as his new capital, and undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire. While he was baptized a Christian only on his deathbed, Constantine nevertheless was a genuinely important figure in Christian history and was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church."

You might also want to have this same discussion for Justinian I and Theodora (6th century), to name two who have appeared on my watchlist (and probably all the others DominusVobiscum has edited). Adam Bishop 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No mention in article of Church of the Holy Apostles

Why is there no mention in this article of the Church of the Holy Apostles?

Just add it.--Panairjdde 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Info box

Why not use this info box?

Saint Constantine the Great
Head of Constantine's colossal statue at Musei Capitolini
Titles Isapostolos, 13th Apostle
Born	Feb 27, 272 in Niš
Died	May 22, 337 in Nicomedia
Venerated in	Orthodox Christianity
Major shrine	Church of the Holy Apostles
Feast	May 21
Attributes	Edict of Milan, First Council of Nicaea, Labarum, In hoc signo vinces
A short hymn or prayer associated with the saint Its source (author's name, title of the prayer book, or at least the denomination)

I see you already used it. According to me, this box is too big in comparison with the information it carries. Constantine is most of all a Roman Emperor; such a big box on one of his side aspects is non suitable. I vote for removal.--Panairjdde 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Side aspect? XXX

I agree with Panairjdde. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I copied the complete infobox to Constantine I and Christianity, surely it is not a side aspect there? XXX

So why you did not leave it there? If look at all the articles which link to this, and tell me which percentage of tham has any reference to his sainthood and which to his being Roman Emperor. And, please, sign your comments.--Panairjdde 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I like info-box set also. It has my vote. -- ~Mallaccaos, 7 April 2006

Debate: Ethnic Origins of Constantine The Greats Mother Helena

There is some discussion about the ethnicity of Constantine the Greats mother Helena_of_Constantinople at Talk:Helena_of_Constantinople, if anyone has thoughts E-mail adress 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid comment

Beyond the Eastern limes of the Euphrates, the Sassanid Empire reacted to the Roman edicts of toleration by persecuting Christians, whom they considered as allies of Persia's ancient enemy, Rome.

Freya Stark was a travel writer, this subjective claim has been stated to look like as an objective fact. Therefore I have moved it here for discussion and making the sentence less POV. Anyone care to comment? Thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Constantine's Faith

"Historians since Lactantius have adhered to the view that Constantine "adopted" Christianity as a kind of replacement for the official Roman polytheism."

This is unclear except in one aspect, it is wrong in several aspects. Constantine was not a polytheist, but like his father a follower of the monothesitic cult of the Sun-God. So Christianity did not replace official polytheism for him. Nor did he do any replacing for the Empire, Constantine's influence for Christianity was financial with a few laws going the church's way, but it would be more than 4 decades after his death before Christianity was made the state religion, and a further 12 years before public acts of official polytheism was banned. Finally, if there is one thing that history teaches about historians it is that they seldom agree on anything! MnJWalker 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Worship of the Sun-God was actually Henotheistic. One major God, but not the only one.

This page's current writing style needs significant improvements

The text, at times, is repetitive, monotonous and lacks flow. Please jump in and help clean it up. Thank you 198.202.68.44L

Perhaps you could indicate precisely which passages you find objectionable.Ociolek 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed for image caption

I'm sorry if it appears pedantic, but one of my pet hates is use of the term "contemporary" in an ambiguous context. I believe that this usage makes it unclear whether the picture of the sculpture with caption "Contemporary bronze head of Constantine" means that it is contemporaneous with Constantine, or with us, in the present. If the latter (which I assume it is), I reckon it should be 'modern bronze head'. Ociolek 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What is meant is that the head is from the times of Constantine himself, not a later representation. It is definitely not "modern". ("Modern" is the statue in York.) Therefore, the first meaning is correct: the brontze head is contemporaneous with Constantine.

How would you express that in English? Varana 16:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct

in English, a "contemporary" portrait is one "contemporaneous" with the subject. Perhaps "contemporaneous" would better please Ociolek. --Wetman 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Two competing statements! Needs clarity

I realise these two statements MAY function together, but to have them at completely different points in the page seems wrong. I won't change anything as I don't know enough, however:

End of introduction states:

"although there has been debate over the veracity of his faith because he was baptized only on his death bed."

Constantines Life and Actions following Edict of Milan:

"Constantine, following a widespread custom, was not baptized until close to his death in 337"

Is the fact that there is a debate on how religious he was, which is based on him being baptised at his death - relevent, given the fact that it was customary to do so? As I understand it, this was customary as people were then 'cleansed' of their 'sins' before dying, and so were able to 'sin' whilst alive. Mentioning this debate seems to skew the interpretation of Constantine as this debate is not countered with evidence that clearly counters it, and that evidence is therefore relevent within the context of that debate. Mononen 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This does not fully represent the debate; the major thrust of the skeptics is that Constantine's policies were ambiguous; which is succeeded by the following dialogue:

• "But he was a baptized Christian".
• "Yes, on his deathbead."
• "As was often done."
• "And often not done."

and so on. Septentrionalis 16:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mononen, I agree with you as would most historians, but there is a politically and religiously motivated minority that want to make a big thing out of the death-bed baptism. The original intro took the radical view that Constantine was not a Christian, but allowed others to be Christians. I edited the current intro but left the bit about the debate out of deference to the original (previous) intro author. MnJWalker 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Haukur 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move June 2006

Constantine I (emperor) → Constantine I (emperor) – By far the most important "Constantine I" is the Roman Emperor.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per nomination.Panairjdde 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, especially since policy provides that the others should be at Constantine I of Scotland and so on. I would actually support a move to Constantine. Septentrionalis 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Simplicity is good. Shilkanni 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Aldux 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I support a move to Constantine I, but not Constantine, since he is clearly the most famous "Constantine I", but there are too many "Constantine" to claim that article. Panairjdde

Which Constantine is as notable as this one? Septentrionalis 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but is such a widely used name, that it would be too much to ask for a direct link. Even Julius Caesar is the most famous Caesar, but the latter article does not link to the first.--Panairjdde 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Caesar is a special case; Constantine isn't a title. (Or am I forgetting something? A real question, there's something at the back of my mind.) Septentrionalis 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This should follow the NC case of Pericles and Nero, but with the ordinal, as there are other Constantines who were his successors in this empire. Shilkanni 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If this for any reason need any longer name than Constantine I, it could be Emperor Constantine I, so we do not need those irritating parentheseses. Shilkanni 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Baptism at death

I've read in a number of places that people were not baptized until near death during the period as a matter of course - where I read, and why this was done, I forget so, I will have to come across it again sometime. It doesn't matter so much in the article, but an explanation why he waited till his death to be baptized is an open question in the article. -- Stbalbach 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New Entry: From what I've learned, Constantine's aspiration was to be baptised in the River Jordan where John the Baptist, according to the New Testament, had baptised Jesus. But because this remained a hope of Constantine's he was never baptised otherwise until just before his death, when it became apparent he would not be able to reach his goal. The fact that he wasn't baptised until just before his death is not a reason to question his faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.160.43 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting. I would be curious/cautious of the source of that explanation. A common strategy for delaying baptism was so that you could continue to sin without breaking an oath to God (or under the control of more earthly clergy), baptised on your death-bed, and thus enter heaven sin-free. -- Stbalbach 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not about being sin-free (in the Pelagian sense of that term), but avoiding the "sin against the Holy Spirit" which according to Gospels was unforgiveable. It is likely that Constantine regarded warfare as a sin against the Holy Spirit, and at the point of his final illness he was about to lead yet another military campaign. MnJWalker 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Constantine convert?

The question requires a definition of "conversion". Does it count if you accept Jesus as one of many authoritative Gods? Clearly Constantine supported Christianity during his reign. But he also supported other religions and worshipped other gods. In fact, he appeared as the earthly form of the god "Sol Invictus" many times including the Nicean Council. So this does not seem like conversion in the ordinary sense that Christianity describes it. What about his baptism? Was that a conversion?

The idea of his baptism comes almost exclusively from one source -- Vita Constantine, credited to Eusebius of Cesaria. Eusebius was appointed by and owed his position and life to Constantine and he wrote Vita Constantine as a Eulogy. The standard technique of the time was to expand and build the reputation of the deceased, not describe the "truth" of what happened. Of Eusebius, a charitable description is that "he was not a great historian". Jakob Burckhardt goes further and says that Eusebius was "“the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity" and "the most objectionable of all eulogists who has utterly falsified his [i.e. Constantine's] image."

Did any other sources validate Eusebius' story? A book reviewed on the internet: Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande. by Marilena Amerise, describes the accounts of a number of people (Christians such as Jerome, Ambrose, Rufinus, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) who wrote about the death of Constantine and DID NOT MENTION the Baptism. Two theories are presented for this: 1) that it was not a very important event (hard to imagine that), or 2) that people wanted to hide the fact that it was an Arian who baptised him (more plausible but not sufficient to create a general silence -- after all, what of the arians?). A third theory would be: It did not happen as described and the apologist Eusebius was not fully honest in his description.

Thus, we have only ONE, highly biased source for this baptism that is not agreed with by other contemporary accounts. This does not meet the wikipedia standards for validated and unbiased sources, particularly since other sources could have (and had motive) to agree with the account and did not. I would be delighted to know of any other contemporary, confirming accounts. I do not believe ANY exist.

Meanwhile, another possibility behind the widely accepted tradition of Constantine's baptism is that Constantine was sprinkled while insensible and his sycophantic admirer, Eusebius, words put in his mouth to make the transition for the state-religion system more secure. --Blue Tie 23:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an important issue, a reader would expect to find somethig regarding the matter in this article. Simply deleting it is not a good way to write an article.--BlaiseMuhaddib 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it was ever deleted. It is not something that is widely recognized as an issue. But I think it is one. I also think substantial questions exist regarding the true nature of his Christianity and his Conversion. --Blue Tie 06:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and saw how you simply removed a category: I think that is the last thing to do. Instead, it should be pointed out somewhere that Eusebius is the only source to claim his baptism, if this is true.

I do not like the edit summary of DominusVobiscum. "Look in any encyclopedia" is not the right answer to a request for sources. Even if every single historian agrees on his baptism, nobody has the right to erase the information that this fact is reported only by one ancient source (and a surely biased one) among all those dealing with this emperor.--BlaiseMuhaddib 12:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to implement your suggestion that "it should be pointed out somewhere that Eusebius is the only source to claim his baptism" with regard to categories. Categories are binary. They are either certainly true or they are not certainly true. There is no discussion area regarding them. In my view, if something is not certainly true, then the category does not apply. I do not think this is a matter of preponderance of the evidence but rather a matter of no significant reason to doubt it. But in this case, there is a reason to doubt it.

I am certainly open to other suggestions, but I do not know how to make a "compromise" work with regard to categories. I would not really like a category that is "People who MIGHT have converted".  :-) What do you think is the right way to handle something binary like a category where the evidence is questionable? --Blue Tie 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps start a new section that outlines the various POV, since there appear to be multiple POV's. I think it would be really interesting to learn more about the pros and cons of thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_I&action=edit&section=34 conversion question. -- Stbalbach 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From Noel Lenski's introduction to "The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine": Above all, there lingers the monumental question of Constantine’s conversion, the “Constantinian question” par excellence. How many divine visions did he have leading up to his conversion: one, two, perhaps more? When precisely did he convert? Did he ever really convert? Scholars continue to argue these questions fiercely, yet opinion on all of them remains divided. Though general consensus has developed around some, none has been definitively solved and many remain wide open. ... (Discussion of how Constantine went both ways)... Constantine seems deliberately to have projected ambiguity, deliberately to have kept people guessing.... Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, written shortly after his death, already presents so tendentious a picture in favor of Constantine that it has often been dubbed a tissue of lies or an outright forgery. ... No matter how hard the student of Constantine struggles, it is nearly impossible to avoid getting caught in the snares of the “Constantinian question,” the question of conversion and faith." --Blue Tie 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be a fan of the Cambridge Companion series, seems pretty unambiguous, this is a serious question among scholars. -- Stbalbach 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote for keeping the category. Categories are, afaik, for finding things on that topic more quickly. Debates over details belong to the respective article. It would be nice to know, though, by which criteria the category decides who is a Christian. (This is in a similar direction as Stbalbach's question of what exactly "conversion" means here. This is imho a more important question than whether his baptism actually took place.)

Constantine's baptism is, from my impression, usually believed to be true. It is generally accepted that his Christianity was somewhat un-orthodox, compared to what dogma held at the time, but in the context of his actions in his later years, his grave (St Apostle's in Cpl.), etc., there is no real reason to doubt the baptism.

On Eusebius, I would not overly rely on what Burckhardt said on him. There has been a lot of research on Eusebius' work after him, including his bias, his method of working, his sources, etc. Newer scholarship usually doesn't echo the harsh verdict (though still remaining critical of Eusebius). Burckhardt is very interesting to read, but he isn't exactly new.

Later sources: Socrates (I, 39), Sozomen (II, 34) and Theodoret (I, 30) do record the baptism on his deathbed; they only do not name the Arian bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius (neither does Eusebius of Caesarea in his Life of Constantine). That information is from Jerome's Chronicon (ad a. 337), who says that Constantine, by being baptized by Eusebius, "fell into Arianism" at the end of his life. Varana 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your notion that it is a tool for finding things on a topic is a compelling argument. Also, the question of what constitutes conversion is also a key issue. Both excellent points.

Frankly I do not doubt that he was baptized but what I have doubts about is the story of his baptism. What are the correct circumstances? Was he fully alert when baptized? Was it a matter of sprinkling a man who was prostrate in his bed? This gets to conversion. Did Constantine convert?

You are right about Socrates. So, that book quoted was not correct or not quoted correctly. Nevertheless, Socrates was not the best historian of Constantine. He claims Constantine went to war over Christianity with Licinius and that Constantine erradicated paganism. This is all nonsense.

Sozomen is a more careful redactor. I always get the impression that he is trying hard to get every detail in. He also appears to rely upon Eusebius -- relating the same details and nothing new.

Theodoret relates less. The point made regarding the book by Marilena Amerise is damaged in the list given. Yet the problem remains. Only Theodoret gives so few details that his source cannot be determined but the other two are clearly relying upon Eusebius. As far as Constantines later actions proving him to be a Convert... well, he retained his title as Pontif Maximus, he continued to mint coins honoring pagan deities, after his supposed conversion he continued to honor Sol Invictus and created Sunday in the honor of the Sun God, (not in honor of Jesus). As Will Durrant says: "He continued to use vague monotheistic language that any pagan could accept. During the earlier years of his supremacy he carried out patiently the ceremonial required of him as Pontifex maximus of the traditional [heathen] cult; he restored pagan temples, and ordered the taking of the auspices [by examining livers of freshly-killed animals]. He used pagan as well as Christian rites in dedicating Constantinople. He used pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal disease."-- Caesar and Christ, page 656--Blue Tie 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right to point out, of course, that the three church historians most probably draw (directly or indirectly) on Eusebius; I only wanted to correct that they don't report the baptism. (The book of Amerise doesn't state that, neither, so it's probably a mistake of the recension.)

Unfortunately, we don't have many contemporaneous sources on Constantine's later years apart from Eusebius, so we're forced to stick with him. Additionally, the Nicomedian baptism is rather soon eclipsed by the legend of Silvester baptizing Constantine in Rome.

Eusebius (of course) relates the baptism as a conscious decision of the emperor, with the obvious goal of providing a worthy end to the career of his Christian emperor. What remains is whether we gain something by doubting that story, which depends on what we think about C's religious beliefs in general... I'll try to rephrase the baptism paragraph to reflect that only Eusebius has a detailed account of the event; let me know what you think.

On Constantine's Christianity: Part of the problem is, imo, that we tend to present Christians and non-Christians as clearly opposed parties without a middle ground - which doesn't do justice to Late Antique reality. Obviously, there was a large area (even in matters of religion) where Christians and "Pagans" could meet, shared similar or identical opinions or had found a compromise that allowed them to co-exist quite peacefully and normally. Especially the Sun provided imagery, language conventions and religious concepts acceptable to both "parties".

Constantine started out as a follower of the Sun God, probably with already mono- or henotheistic convictions. A gradual development of his adherence to the Christian God can be expected; how far that "conversion" actually went, would be another question: there's no need to assume that he adopted all of the tenets of orthodox Christian dogma, much less that he put them into practice in what he did as a ruler. After all, he still was emperor of all Romans, Christians and Pagans alike. Accordingly, many of his actions and "official" statements (coins, inscriptions, etc.) show a gradual adoption of Christianity and an effort to stay within the framework of mutually acceptable language and imagery. While Sol was featured prominently in his earlier years (which can also mean that he saw Sol and the Christian God as one), he slowly dropped him from official documents, esp. after 324. (After 326, Sol doesn't appear on coins anymore and is replaced by symbolic personifications like Victoria etc. Constantine dropped the solar invictus epithet in favour of victor. He starts his program of state-sponsored church building about the same time, e.g. with St Peter's in Rome. The Labarum is made prominent. He presided at Nicaea; and so on.)

In general, I think that we create more problems by making him non-Christian in his later years than we solve. However, some pecularities of his "Christianity" need mentioning, esp. his rather traditional Roman approach at his new religion: He obviously had little qualms of seeing himself as divine, which was alien to orthodox Christianity, but normal for a Pagan; he venerated the Christian God as his personal benefactor, and only later realized (and only partially put into effect) Christian dogma; he never really tried to suppress paganism in any way. In this light, I see no compelling reason to doubt that he consciously chose baptism at the end of his life; that remains, however, far from proven.

Regarding newer literature, I currently have only access to mostly German books; esp. Brandt; I don't know how useful references to those are for you... Varana 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you Germans have all the best books on this sort of stuff. I know a bit of German but I have to slug my way through it. And some really cool works are only found in German not in English.

Baptism is not the same as conversion. In C's case the two are over two decades apart.

"Eusebius of Cesaria (sic!). Eusebius was appointed by and owed his position and life to Constantine" - utter nonsense. He was elected by his own church way before Constantine assumed the rule in the East. Chances are that Eusebius overstates his proximity to Constantine. Also, opinion of one long gone scholar does not equal facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions and Changes to Christianity

As far as I can tell, neither this article nor the subarticle of Constantine and Christianity discuss how Christianity was changed by Constantine. --Blue Tie 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is because this article is attempting to be serious and accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and edit if you have reliable sources. Check this out as one source. It's a written by a Chicago Reference Librian. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mheretic.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerdwyer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 September 2006.

I don't think Blue Tie meant *that* by his comment... ;) Varana 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (*sigh*; sometimes I should get to write article text and not discussion pages...)

Infant Baptism footnote?

the current text of note 5 reads:

In this period infant baptism had not yet become a matter of routine in the west (although many were, it was initially only done in times of emergency, and it was seen more as a promise of future submission to Christianity than a deliberate choice to be Christian). Adults who voluntarily submitted to baptism made a clear statement of their beliefs placing them safely among the redeemed. Some waited to old age or death for various reasons, creating tensions between Churchmen who encouraged their audience to submit and those who waivered. See Thomas M. Finn (1992), Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: East and West Syria. See also Philip Rousseau (1999). "Baptism", in Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post Classical World, ed. Peter Brown.

Clearly, I need to hunt down these sources. However, the Canons of Hippolytus (Rome, 210) state the following:

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body ofwater. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

That Hippolytus was bishop of Rome should speak to the prevelance of infant baptism by at least the early third century.

In light of this, I find the footnote questionable. Anyone care to comment? jrcagle 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Hippolytus was not bishop of Rome, but he is nonetheless a high authority. Maybe the note should be stripped down to saying the infant baptism was not universal. Why the West is singled out I don't know since a) Constantine was baptized in the East b) there are several famous cases of adult baptisms in Christian families in the East as well, e.g. Saint Basilius. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the footnote (kinda forced into it by a former discussion which is why it's so long and detailed). I did the research and these are some of the best academic sources available on the topic. I don't know about a single primary source trumping the synthesis of many modern historians - perhaps Hippolytus was speaking in how things "should be" or how he wanted to present them as being. Certainly it was in the Church's interest to have everyone baptized as soon as possible. It's also unclear in what context this quote is taken - no one is saying children baptism didn't happen. -- Stbalbach 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see where the passage of Hippolytus refutes the footnote. Hippolytus explicitly mentions baptism of adult men and women; the footnote doesn't state that infant baptism was not practised, but that baptism was often (not always) postponed. Maybe replace "had not yet become a matter of routine in the west" with "was often deferred / delayed", but the sense of the note is correct. (A nice illustration of the sentiment is in Augustine, Confessions I, 11.17-18, which would have been c. 355-360, that is relatively near to Constantine.) Varana 14:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem of the footnote is one of emphasis. It claims that infant baptism wasn't the routine (implying that something else was) instead of just stating that it wasn't universal. Not to speak of the highly questionable interpretation that it was seen "more as a promise of future submission to Christianity than a deliberate choice to be Christian", when sacramentally speaking baptism means incorporation (or submission, if you will) into Christianity. Also, that "it was initially only done in times of emergency" is more than questionable. This all might be a tenable POV but should it be included here, where me merely deal with Constantine and his baptism? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. First, Str1977 is correct that Hippolytus was not *the* bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope); however, he was *a* bishop in Rome. [5]. Sorry for the overstatement.

Great link, Verena! Augustine seems to be lamenting his delayed baptism as well as giving indirect evidence that baptism was purposely delayed during that time period.

Third, what's at stake here is that the history of baptism is sometimes used as ammunition for the debate over the theology of baptism: "the early church did X; therefore, we should also do X." My understanding, however, is that the practices of the early church and understanding of its meaning were varied. For example, the Canons of Hippolytus above shows that infant baptism *was* 'routine' -- perhaps common, perhaps not; but routine nevertheless -- in his jurisdiction at least; whereas for Tertullian and the Montanists, it would probably not have been practiced. Thus, I would support language such as "infant baptism was not universal", and leave out the underlying motivations ("promise of future submission", etc.), since they are not relevant to Constantine (and also because it seems likely that baptism of infants would have been understood much as baptism of adults: an actual washing away of the sin nature). jrcagle 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Constantine

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)

Deified?

This article is categoried with the "Deified Roman emperors" category. Anyone have any kind of cite for this? Inscriptions where he's referred to as "divus" don't cut it; I'm talking about actual formal declaration from the Senate. --Jfruh (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In Late Antiquity, the old formal procedures had become meaningless. That includes the Senate. If Constantine is called divus on official documents as inscriptions and coins, the deification is as official as it will ever get. Emperors are referred to as divus right after their death; the Senate didn't have to say anything on the matter. Maximian, for instance, even went from being ignored to damnatio memoriae to divus on Constantine's whim (not to mention that he was deified by Maxentius and suffered damnatio memoriae by Constantine *at the same time*).

Additionally, we simply don't have any acts and proceedings of the Senate from those times. They were... quite unimportant. Varana 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Senate had become unimportant, but I think that merely calling someone "divus" doesn't make the deified. In late antiquity, it had essentially come to mean "the late Emperor whom we like." It doesn't carry with it the full connotations of state-sponsored cult that would have accrued to deified emperors in the 1st or 2nd century. I'm not saying that there wasn't a certain sacral quality to it, but it's misleading to say that Constantine was deified in the same sense that, say, Vespasian was. --Jfruh (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What constitutes deification, then?

For Constantine, we do have official coinage declaring him divus and others showing his ascent to heaven on a chariot. Whether we have cults for him, I'm not certain; I can access the relevant books only in some weeks' time.

On the other hand, do you have some examples for an emperor being called divus after his death, where we are sure that he didn't have any cult associated with him? I think that often, it's the other way 'round: in Late Antiquity, a divine nature is something the emperor already possesses during his life, death adds little to it. The need for a declaration to divus was less important, as the emperor already was divine, and his divinity most clearly to be seen by his actions during his lifetime, not after death. Constantine was divine while he lived; when he died, it stayed the same. Constantine was maybe not deified "in the same sense (as) Vespasian"; he was not an emperor "in the same sense as Vespasian", he ruled an empire that was different from that of Vespasian, and religious beliefs had changed from the times of Vespasian (also in the non-Christian religions).

Granted, I don't know of any city that explicitly created a priesthood for the deified Constantine. However - was that still common procedure at all? I'm fairly sure that the same applies to any emperor of the tetrarchy. In this light, the argument against the deification becomes one e silentio: we have official documents in favour of the deification; we don't have any statement to the contrary. Varana 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In hoc signo vinces

No mention of the famous dream/vision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.19.173.43 (talk • contribs) .

IMPORTANT

Hey ladies and gentlemen,

Some imbecile has made some minor changes to this page. For example, at the top, instead of saying constantine it says yo mamma. All that appears to be changed is the name. I am not fammiliar with editing wiki pages so i will leave that to someone else. It is in my opinion, that only members can make changes to pages. I love wikipedia and may it live forever.

thanks,

SaltyMirz#10GT

email: <removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.144.107.155 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

On Baptism and "veracity" of his faith

The lead paragraph questions whether Constantine "really" converted to Christianity because he was allegedly baptised late in life. This does not belong so early in the story.

• The conclusion does not follow from the premise

Late baptisms were a common practise, like deathbed confessions are viewed now

• Other factors have more bearing on his conversion

His drive to straighten up the church, calling the council of Nicea, indicate an appropriate degree of fanaticism

MartinGugino 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didnt read every word above on the subject - there is to much, and its not threaded - MartinGugino 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

removed: and the fact that he was baptized very close to his death

It says in Wikipedia itself that this was the custom in those days. So even if the fact is true, you can't draw that conclusion from it.

• MartinGugino 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Toleration date

Didn't Constantine give offical toleration of Christians in 313 not 311 (Edict of Milan)???

Rampant Vandalism

I recommend, like many other pages, that this article be locked or semi-protected. This is an article ripe for and rife with vandalism. Knight45 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of quotes in judaism section

I removed the legnthy quotes in the Judaism section and added just the information they expressed. As an encyclopedia, it is expected that the reader is given a gloss of information, not legnthy quotes. I do not see what purpose the quotes serve, since their information is already given. Also, I removed the two unsourced statements saying (1) that the emperor was deified and (2) that this was just a posthumous honour - besides being unsourced and "fact tagged", if true they seem to render each other trivial. I rephrased the bit on Eusebius's Arianism - he was not always an Arian and we would need a source saying whether he was at the time of Constantine's death or not; as I understand it, Eusebius's exact religious position at points of his career is disputed. Lostcaesar 22:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

After having read the article carefully and checked Wikipedia:What is a good article? I've reach the following conclussions:

1. As for the first requirement (It is well written), there are several sentences which lack clarity, for example the following just to mention a few:

• Both Constantine and Maximinus Daia were disappointed over their relegation to caesar and Licinius' appointment, and subsequently defied that ruling and styled themselves Augustus, which was granted to them by Galerius in 310, thus officially creating four Augusti.

• During this epic battle Constantine had his soldiers place on their shields what Christians believed was the labarum symbol, although there is a dispute between historians whether this design was of clear Christian, ancient paganistic (solar) or of that date's astronomical origins.

• On the site of a temple to Aphrodite was built the new Church of the Holy Apostles. Generations later there was the story that a Divine vision led Constantine to this spot, and an angel no one else could see, led him on a circuit of the new walls.

There is some use of weasel words, for instance:

• Historians however suspect this account to be a genealogical fabrication to flatter Constantine. Check Wikipedia:Words to avoid

2. As for the second requirement (It is factually accurate and verifiable), the article needs many more footnotes. I've marked several statements which need to be referenced and they are quite a few. There are also some external links which would be better converted to footnotes. Finally there are contradictory statements regarding Constantine date of birth in the intro (c. 280) and in the Early Life section (272-273).

3. As for the third requirement (It is broad in its coverage), depth and coverage seem to be adequate. However, there are some problems with the article structure. Some subsections in the Life section need to be renamed for uniformization. 312 to 324 can be renamed as Civil Wars and 326-death to just Death. Constantine's name should be erased from section titles per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Wording. Legal legacy should go in the Legacy section. The Reforms section should be eliminated as it has no text of its own and Iconography and Ideology put in its place.

4. As for the fourth, fifth and sixth requirements (It is neutral / It is stable / Any images it contains are appropriate), the article looks compliant.

As the objections mentioned above seem to be quite serious I'm failing the article GA nomination. However, as usual, it can be renominated after they have been corrected. --Victor12 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First Christian City

I'd like to suggest that the statement that Constantinople was the "First Christian City" is not NPOV. There are multiple cities that claim this title (legitimately). Without qualification this statement is inappropriate.

--Mcorazao 07:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Paganism in Constantinople

I had a concern about the statement

Between 324 and 330, Constantine built ... a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople)–the city ... had no pagan temples.

I found a BBC article (see this link) that states

Constantine founded a new city named after himself: Constantinople. Christian writers played up the idea that this was to be a 'new Rome', a fitting Christian capital for a newly Christian empire.

But they had to find ways to explain the embarrassing fact that in this new, supposedly Christian city, Constantine had erected pagan temples and statues.

This is contrary to what I've always read but this is the BBC saying this. Interesting point to clarify. Can anybody comment on whether the BBC is simply in error or whether there might actually be some truth to this?

--Mcorazao 07:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article hints at the same thing and specifies as a reference the book "Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451" by Gilbert Dagron. Anybody know the book?

--Mcorazao 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't have any information on this. However, the BBC article also states that Many of his actions seemed resolutely pagan. Constantine founded a new city named after himself: Constantinople. - this false statement (the city was renamed Constantinople after his death) is a good indication that the article isn't exactly indisputably factual. Brando130 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I add that erecting Pagan statues was nothing more than transferring the great artwork of Greek and Roman Gods to the capital. Museums hold such artwork, that doesn't mean the curators are feverent pagan priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned markets on Sunday?

I have removed the line indicating Constantine was the first emporer to ban markets and close public offices on Sunday. Please reference this better if it is to be reinsertered. The item had two sources. One is simply a last name and a year, no title, page, etc. - the other reference is "New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908, Theodosian Code" - It is true that the Theodosian code closes public offices etc. on Sunday, however I honestly don't know if that was first implemented by Theodosius, or if it is actually an older law of Constantine. At any rate, I was unable to find the information in the stated source, there is no article for 'Theodosian Code' in the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia, and the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" was published in the 1960's, not the 1900's. Brando130 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Paragraph "Constantine and Jesus Christ"

The paragraph "Constantine and Jesus Christ" has problems with regard to NPOV and verifiability. It detracts seriously from the quality of the article. Would it be considered vandalism to simply delete it? Asinius Pollio 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening section is a mess

The opening section in this article is a mess. The first two paragraphs in particular are a long string of titles and details without any coherent structure. The first sentence does not even have a main verb! Any volunteers to clean up this tangle? Mlouns (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not ethnic Illyrians

Roman emperors and later on are people that came from the province of Illyricum and not ethnic Illyrians.They are called Illyricani and not Illyriani.This applied to all romans.Maximinus the Thrax was from the province of Thrace but he had a goth father and an Alan mother.

The credit belongs a group of "illyrian" emperors so called because some of them came from the province of Illyricum,The Ancient World: 1200 BC to AD 500,by Luigi Pareti

"These men are usually called the Illyrian emperors since they all were born in that province and were raised to power by legions stationed there".page 546,The Ancient World by Joseph Ward Swain

A History of the Ancient World -page 505 by George Willis Botsford - History, Ancient

"Most of them were natives of Illyricum and its neighborhood, and hence axe called Illyrian emperors. As the people of that region were now largely German"Megistias (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a sound point. I think that more care should be taken when describing ancient nationalities, to avoid anachronisms. You often see Trajan described as a Spaniard! Djnjwd (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and in the Roman empire people had a "Provincial origin" that may and may not have coincided with their actual origin.They may have been thracians or illyrians but most of this case were not unless sources specify their origins except "their province".Megistias (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Constantine I → Constantine the Great — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. This ruler is overwhelmingly known as Constantine the Great, not Constantine I. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose. Constantine the Great is misleading and therefore becoming rare (in Greek it means no more than our Constantine I). And the full text of our present policy requires that such changes be done only when the sources are in consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't seem to mind being misleading when it comes to Scottish kings. That aside, Constantinus Magnus has been well established in Europe since the Middle Ages, and has nothing to do with Greek. Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος is as far as I know different from Κωνσταντίνος Α. I'd be interested to know what you mean. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The Greeks never used Κωνσταντίνος Α; they distinguished two kings of the same name as Μέγας and Μικρος with no other implications than temporal; Latin Major and Minor (as with Cato Major) is a translation of this; so would Magnus be. Please note that Constantine III reigned centuries after this Constantine and his son, giving plenty of time for the convention to establish itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • AH ok. Interesting if true. Anyways, doesn't matter, as "Constantine the Great" is well established as meaning exactly what we would normally mean by it. Constantine is overwhelmingly known as "the Great" whatever its origins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not true and irrelevant. Constantine is no Greek king but a Roman Emperor speaking the latin language. One should not confuse "Maior" (as in Cato the Elder) with "Magnus" which is a honorific (as in Pompeius Magnus) Str1977 ^(talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak Support Annother one where I agree with Deacon but can't find anything within wiki guidelines to support it. As PMA states, we have to have a strong consensus and quick checks don't prove that Constantine The Great has a much greater useage than Emperor Constantine or Constantine I. Willing to be convinced though. Narson (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Narson, if you support the move you support the move. I could go edit the guidelines now and remove that sentence. These votes are test cases for the future guidelines themselves; it's prolly my fault for citing them in the first place. This Emperor is overwhelmingly known as Constantine the Great in any case. I got four times the google hits for "Constantine the Great" than --> "Constantine I" Roman Empire <-- Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me rephrase, I do believe that it should be Constantine the Great, but I can't prove it. Using Google Books I found roughly the same numbers. Any of the people better with google tests able to do them and provide some kind of support/numbers? For now I'm striking my vote/notvote/whatever-we-are-calling-them-today, this one is way too borderline. I do think we need some kind of numerical proof on these, just for clarity. Narson (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I've gone and put some evidence below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ahh, see, better use of qualifiers. I used Emperor as the qualifiers after "Constantine BLAH" in the search. Led to closer results, I think. Lacking most of my reference books, I am going to put in a weak support vote/notvote/gopher on this as I like the move and there seems to be evidence. Only weak because I am sure the test can be altered for different results. Narson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • And I have improved on that, see the third Google section below. "Constantine the Great" constantly beats "Constantine I" + Emperor, mostly by a substantial margin. Even "Constantine the Great" + Emperor beats "Constantine I" + Emperor in two out three cases. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: There is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he was known as Constantine the Great, at least for the past 1700 years, and especially ebcause of his well-known English connexions of which we were taught in primary school. So yes, he is better and popularly known to us as that. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support "Constantine the Great." He is much better known by that name than as "Constantine I." Still, in future I might be persuaded to support "Constantine I the Great." Nihil novi (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support "Constantine the Great". There were many Roman Emperors at this time who mishandled the empire, and few are greater than Constantine. The Greeks do in fact refer to him "as the Great" because they mock their former King Constantine by calling him "the Little", satirizing his name Constantine. The Roman and Byzantine Empire was well known by many nations, as was Constantine the Great. So arguing that he was not great, or that the Greeks did not call him great or that this title was not well known is not very sound, in my opinion Tourskin (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, and I am surprised that reasons even need be given. It's like Queen Victoria, er, I mean, Victoria of the United Kingdom. Srnec (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Constantine the Great in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Encarta and Britannica. As Srnec and others say, what's to argue about? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Seems most common in English. - Darwinek (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support An obvious choice. Space Cadet (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - he is not commonly known as "the Great". Deb (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He is known as "the Great" by anybody who knows of him and knowledge of him is very common for a 4th century figure. He is almost unheard of as Constantine I, which alone suffices to elicit a change. Srnec (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You only have to google to see that this is simply untrue. In the course of my (substantial) classical education, I rarely heard him referred to as "the Great". Deb (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did my first degree in Classics (minoring in Medieval History), and I almost always encountered him as Constantine the Great except in detailed accounts of his reign. I find it very hard to believe you've only encountered "the Great" rarely if what you say is true. Even the OCD begins with "the Great". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you're not reading what I wrote, but just using it as an excuse to reiterate your personal preference. Carry on regurgitating, it won't make any difference to my opinion. Deb (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Constantine the Great is more telling then Constantine I (there are quite a few people called Constantine I but only one "the Great". Or move it to Constantine I, Roman Emperor. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose this one. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Because of POV concerns. I favor systematics (= regnal ordinal) for this case. Shilkanni (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV? Is Alexander the Great POV? I would point out that Constantine's "great" status, while affected greatly by his Christianity, is not engendered solely by it, but rather by his position as one of the last powerful rulers of a united Roman empire, often credited with staving of its decline. It is POV, yes, but near-universal POV. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This title lionises him and inflates his significance. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Same could be said of Alexander the Great, so what? This issue is what is commonly used and to whom does it refer. Besides, Constantine's significance could hardly be inflated: it is great (if not "good"). Srnec (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PMA and Dimadick. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. In this case, anointed Constantine as "the Great" is hardly unanimous. Why is this article not titled Constantine I, Roman Emperor? Why do not all Roman Emperors have titles with that format? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I can see why we might not want to pre-emptively disambiguate for Roman Emperors, though the case is not obvious to me either way. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unanimously recognised that "Constantine the Great" refers to this individual. Srnec (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unanimously recognized that the Scourge of God refers to Attila too, but we don't use it as a biography title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was only showing that it is unanimous to anoint this Constantine as "the Great", not arguing that unanimity of reference should determine article title. But it does bear on the fact that Scourge of God should redirect to the figure to which it unanimously refers. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So should Constantine the Great redirect; as indeed it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My argument was never based on unanimity. I was only responding to BlueMoonlet's assertion that "anointed (sic) Constantine as 'the Great' is hardly unanimous." I prefer "the Great" as an article title b/c the numeral is less common and not as well-known, this figure is famous enough for an exception to the rules, and there is Roman imperial precedent for nicknames (e.g. Philip the Arab). Also, this figure is generally famous, not just to scholars and the extremely well-heeled, and he is famous as "Constantine the Great", not "Constantine I" or "Constantine" (which most people recognise as a name and not just an individual Roman emperor, though context can allow that). Constantine I the Great would be a reasonable compromise if the move does not go through, in my opinion. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose since there's a Constantine II. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  For goodness sake GoodDay, what on earth does that have to do with anything? Constantine II is not called Constantine the Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax Deacon, the survey is currently in favour of 'Constantine the Great'. If the article is moved, I won't revert it. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am relaxed and don't care much if it's moved or not, but of all the many flimsy vote comments made above that (perhaps with Deb's) makes the least sense. These discussions aren't votes, they are discussions! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I read your earlier response to my 'opinon' as a sign of frustration. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article should keep its ordinal, and not use a cognomen. – Axman (☏) 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what "oppose" means, but could you give a reason? Srnec (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, ... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet". This proposal fails that test at both the simple Google search and also in reliable sources. Further a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It surprised me not to see his nickname. And I think this Google search will show how overwhelming usage really is:

• 46,900 results for emperor "constantine i" -constantine-the-great -constantine-i-the-great -wikipedia.
• 214,000 results for "constantine the great" -"constantine i" -wikipedia.

First, I removed Wikipedian influence (for obvious reasons). Second, I removed "Constantine (I) the Great" from searches for "Constantine I" and I remove that from searches for "Constantine the Great". This shows us how much more common the usage of nickname or ordinal is in preference to the other. Finally, "emperor" was needed to account for the fact that "Constantine I" is ambiguous and yields false positives. Adding emperor to the second search drops hits to 91,600! Clearly the ordinal only makes sense within an "imperial" context, but since the title of a Wikipedia article is not in such a "context", I think the nickname (clearly more used) ought to be preferred. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Google results

"Constantine I" + "Roman Empire" vs. "Constantine the Great"

PLAIN GOOGLE

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 93,500
• "Constantine the Great": 218,000

BOOKS

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 825
• "Constantine the Great": 1,870

SCHOLAR

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 1,120
• "Constantine the Great": 3,620

"Constantine I" + "Roman Empire" vs. "Constantine the Great" + "Roman Empire"

The gap narrows a bit when "Roman Empire" added to both searches. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PLAIN GOOGLE

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 70,400
• "Constantine the Great" Roman Empire: 80,100

BOOKS

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 822
• "Constantine the Great" Roman Empire: 1,024

SCHOLAR

• "Constantine I" Roman Empire: 1,120
• "Constantine the Great" Roman Empire: 2,710

"Constantine I" + Emperor vs. "Constantine the Great"

The last comparison is flawed as there is no Constantine the Great except the Roman Emperor - hence it needlessly narrows down the search. However, "Constantine I" + "Roman Empire" is problematic as well. The proper comparison would be "Constantine I" + Emperor vs. "Constantine the Great" - to distinguish him from any Greek or Scottish kings. To avoid any skewing of the results I have also searched for "Constantine the Great" + Emperor. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PLAIN GOOGLE

• Constantine I Emperor: 103,000
• Constantine the Great: 212,000
• Constantine the Great Emperor: 118,000

BOOKS

• Constantine I Emperor: 1,532
• Constantine the Great: 1,850
• Constantine the Great Emperor: 1,298

SCHOLAR

• Constantine I Emperor: 1,150
• Constantine the Great: 3,620
• Constantine the Great Emperor: 2,690

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By putting "Constantine I" in quotes, the above Google analysis ignores sources that refer to the subject as "Constantine" with neither the ordinal nor "the Great". I would think this usage would support the ordinal over the nickname. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Neither of the current suggestions under discussion has garnered sufficient support. This does not preclude further discussion of other alternatives. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Constantine I → Constantine — The more I have thought about it, the more convinced I am that this is the best solution. The present title is clearly unacceptable because it fails to disambiguate with Constantine I of Scotland, Greece, etc. The use of ordinals does not sit well with the Emperors of Rome. However, the proposed move to “the Great” makes use of an epithet that is not overwhelmingly used (unlike Alexander the Great, for example). In view of the fact that this Constantine is original and 99.99% of people who type in Constantine will be looking for him, we should use this as the main article title and disambiguate at Constantine (disambiguation) – just as we do for Augustus. —Deb (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, as primary usage for this name, as I did in the closed move request above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, obviously. Deb (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not a Catholic or an Orthodox, but I cannot help but suspect that there is some anti-"Christian" bias going on here, whether in the Wiki-community or academia I do not know, but I find it surprising that "the Great", which is indisputably his nickname, is opposed in favour of a numeral or no disambiguator at all. "Constantine" is too broad. Finding this figure under that title would, I believe, be surprising. After all, what percentage of searches for Augustine are intended for the African? Or of George Bush for Dubya? Srnec (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A majority in both cases, I would expect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and as I argued on Deb's talk page, I doubt that 99.99% of searches for "Constantine" refer to this individual. Perhaps you haven't heard of the movie Constantine (film) (I've never seen it)? Srnec (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'm both an enthusiastic Christian and a supporter of the move, see my vote below, and skeptical that there's any anti-Christian agenda here. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I will strike my comments. They were based on the POV-related objections (see Shilkanni and Dimadick in the poll above) raised above. I was wary making them and I did not intend them to be directed towards Deb or PMA, but I have encountered this sort of opposition-to-a-nickname-because-it-is-POV nonsense before. In this case the opposition may be anti-Christian, but since it would be impossible to tell even if such opposition were rampant, my comments deserve to be removed as unproductive and overly speculative. Srnec (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "The use of ordinals does not sit well with the Emperors of Rome." Wrong, it is the most useful way of disambiguating such Emperors as Gordian I, Gordian II, Gordian III, Claudius II, Constantine II (emperor), Constantius II, Valentinian I, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Constantine III (western emperor), Constans II (usurper), Constantius III, Valentinian III, Theodosius II, Leo I (emperor), Leo II (emperor), Justin I and Justinian I. I think the article should keep its ordinal, and just add the diacritic (emperor). Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that if you propose it. Deb (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Constantine is rightly a disambig page. Per Dimadick, best title is probably Constantine I, Roman Emperor. I don't know why this format is not used for all Roman Emperors. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I can see why we might not want to pre-emptively disambiguate for Roman Emperors, though the case is not obvious to me either way. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Many English speakers who know that there was an Emperor Constantine and even some of his achievements would not be aware of any others by this name. In the time of Constantine is unambiguous in everyday English. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that we shouldn't use ordinals with Roman emperors, unless it's common to do so. I don't usually see ordinals w/Constantine (or with Justinian, for that matter). --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since there's a Constantine II. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? There is a Tiberius II and a Claudius II; would you move Tiberius and Claudius to the almost unheard of Tiberius I and Claudius I? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would, in a split second (if I could). GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would second that. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the most famous and effective propagator of the name, he is not primary usage for the name Constantine. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Dimadick. – Axman (☏) 11:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Shouldn't this formal process wait until the previous request has run its course or else be included there? — AjaxSmack 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

They can be closed together, as the best way to resolve a third possiblity brought up in discussion, or this one can be let run five days after the other.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree about avoiding numerals for Roman Emperors. They are an anachronism, as for Hellenistic Kings, but they are now established convention. How else do we deal with Theodosius II or Valentinian III? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This article should not be moved to "Constantin" as that is a mere name shared by 12 Emperors, various Kings and also many "mere mortals". Str1977 ^(talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true, and as a general rule I wouldn't suggest it. I just think that, in this specific case, it's the best option. Deb (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Theodosius and Valentinian are "Roman emperors" in some sense, but there's a difference in the way Imperial and Late Antique emperors are treated--numerals are almost never used before Constantine, whereas after him they're rather common. Maybe this is because different disciplines deal with these periods, i.e. ancient historians deal w/Augustus and Hadrian, whereas Byzantinists deal w/Justinian and Theodosius? Just a guess. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gordians were in the earliest 200s, and they are numbered; they are not late antique. The difference comes from the fact that we do have unique names for the early Emperors, which come down from Suetonius' time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In light of failed move requests

Please see: Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors#Nomenclature. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Baptism of Constantine

I understand that the only evidence that Constantine finally accepted baptism comes from Eusebius, who was not a reliable source. Thus the sentence questioning whether C adopted christianity early or late would require an extra possibility: or at all. Notably, C was never made a saint by the early RC church. Mike0001 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to write about the 56-th Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. He was born at 27.02.2074 in Serbia. The full name of Constantine the Great was Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus. People mostly remember Constantine by two things. First by he was the first Christian emperor and second by he made Christianity the national religion. At the question, how does he become Christian emperor, ore why, can we answer only with historical stories and historical facts. If we believe that history is written by winners, then we can believe, that every emperor or ruler tries to show the best “side” of his actions. Constantine was born to a man called Constancy (with nickname Green and Pale) and to a mother Helen. Helen had a big influence on his life. When Constantine became emperor he gave her all power, as if she were a Queen. Her portrait even appeared on coins. Helen used that power to do good things. Constantine gained the nickname the Great on the battlefield. He had to fight against barbarians during his whole life. He was the emperor in the Western part of Rome but the Eastern part was ruled by Maksenij. After several tries to make peace and even weddings they didn’t succeed to maintain peace. In year 312 they fought by Milvijski bridge. Constantine won with the help of the shield with little cross an it. And here we come to the first legend in his life. This legend speaks about how he became Christian. One night before this fight he saw a cross and a sign: “in this sign (cross) you will win”. His mother liked Christianity so she pressured at him and under that pressure he publicized the Milan edict. We don’t know exactly why he makd Christianity the only national religion but we know two possibilities. (And one possibility doesn’t exclude other so probably both are correct.) The first one is legend I have already mentioned. The second one is that he saw that the Christianity was a great opportunity to reunite peoples from western and eastern part of the Empire. With that he gained better politic strength and control over the whole empire. That change made a lot of differences in the culture and life of peoples then and now. That changes weren’t pleasant because people had to denied the faith of there ancestors, that was they regarded sacred. And lot of people hated Constantine for that. Riots began to appear: the crowd threw rocks to his tombstone. His generals demanded to kill them. There reasons were : “there do not exist that horrible punishment for a criminals that pollute the face of the divine emperor.” But when he touch his face he spoke: “I do not feel any wound.” Most of the people were pagan and they worshiped the God of the Sun, like Constantine him self. And because they were forced in to the Christianity he agreeded to make some compromises. Some of that compromises we can steel see… most of them in Roman Catholic Church. I will write two of them. Pagans worshiped the God of the Sun an Sunday (the name of the day tells that by itself: Sun-day) But the Bible teaches that we have to worship God an Saturday. So he made a compromise and allowed them to come in church at Saturdays and Sundays. In 321 he proclaimed, Sunday the only day to worship God. By doing that he had violated the basic of the Bible – Ten Gods commandments.

The second one is Christmas. From the Bible, history and logical thinking, we know that the official census of the population wasn’t 25th December. At winter time no-one does official census of the population. And because Maria and Joseph went in Bethlehem for that official census we know that it wasn’t in winter time. So why do we celebrate the 25th December as the birthday of Christ? Because of Constantine’s compromise. Pagans worship the God of the Sun an 25th December. And to make them easier being Christians he pronounced, the 25th December the birthday of Jesus Christ. So they could worship their God, but just under a different name.

In the book The Da Vinci code, Dan Brown writes something about Constantine. He writes that the Constantine summoned council. Dan Brown says that the whole council was about Jesus divines. And an top of that he writes that the results of voting were close. And that People had seen Jesus as an ordinary prophet. The only truth about this is that he really summoned council. But at that council they did not talk about the question if Jesus is God ore not. At council in the year 325 in Niceja they nearly touched that question because only three persons thought so, but they were, of course, wrong. At the end some interesting things. When he pronounced the Christianity as the only faith his whole army walked across the river and one priest baptize them all together. The irony is that he baptized him self when he were dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.226.45 (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)