Talk:John VI Kantakouzenos

Requested move

The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

no apparent NPOV dispute

nothing listed here; so tag deleted

Unnecessary

I believe the following sentence, which is found on the third paragraph of the Life section is unnecessary, and derogatory. It's a very subjective comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It should therefore be removed.

"Cantacuzenus is considered responsible for their entry into Europe."

Good point , considering that it was the civil war created by the Regency, not just by Kantakouzenos that led to Turks into Europe.Tourskin 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Joasaph redirect?

I gave "Joasaph" a go in wikisearch and it redirected here; there's also Joasaph Bolotov first Bishop of Kodiak. should that be a dab line or just put him in the See alsos?Skookum1 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

The article puts the blame for the civil war mostly on the -purportedly unfounded- fears of a woman, the regent.

It says e.g. ..and the paranoia of the empress who suspected him to be a usurper....

(My underlining)

But then in the rest of the story it quickly becomes clear that those fears were not mere paranoia. John VI did actually declare himself emperor and tried to usurp the throne at the cost of his (purportedly) 'great friend' the young prince John V. That clearly makes the regent's fears reasonable and founded rather than pathological and paranoid.

The article is therefore demonstrably illogical and thereby unscientific. It may well be that the culprit of this piece of ill-logic is in the source used, but then this source unmasks itself as untrustworthy and should not be relied on. I do not know what motives that particular author had, but it might have something to do with the fact that the regent was a woman or perhaps that she was born in the West.

At any rate: the article as it stands now is an insult to the intelligence of the reader and needs to be changed. I would be very surprised if no historian could be found that looks at the story differently. Jcwf (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This article needs work, but please see the article on the Byzantine civil war of 1341–47. Most historians accept that Kantakouzenos was backed into a corner due to the machinations of Apokaukos, and this is at least partly borne out by his subsequent behaviour: when he won the civil war, he did not depose John V outright, and in general was very lenient towards him and his partisans. It is true that he may have overstepped his authority in the immediate aftermath of Andronikos's death, but there is no evidence he was actually planning a usurpation himself. Constantine ✍ 17:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are still trying to tell me that John VI declared himself emperor 'innocently', i.e. without planning it? I am sorry but this really defies logic. Becoming emperor takes planning. A lot of it. If someone usurps a throne that itself is evidence of having planned it. I can understand that he tried to portray himself as someone who could not help but take John V's throne, but that sort of 700 year old propaganda has no place on a wiki page. Jcwf (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell you anything, but professional historians by and large accept that Kantakouzenos was backed into a corner. Did his own actions contribute to this? Certainly. But declaring oneself emperor after being made virtually an outlaw by the regency is probably the only choice he had if he wanted to preserve his head. As for planning, there are several instances of people who were declared emperors essentially on the spur of the moment, to save their own skins, often pressured by their supporters rather than being driven by their own ambition: Leontios, Michael II, Isaac II Angelos, Theophobos, and probably others whose names escape me at the moment. Chinese history is also rife with similar cases of powerful men claiming the throne for fear of their own downfall rather than following a premeditated plan. And unlike these men Kantakouzenos actually responded to his de facto outlawing rather than initiating an outright usurpation. What is virtually unique, however, is the way Kantakouzenos treated the defeated opposition after the war ended. If his intention all along had been to usurp the throne, he certainly would have deposed the Palaiologoi there and then. That he did not do so, and furthermore that a few years later when John V rose against him he gave up pretty quickly, seem to indicate that, whatever else he may have been, Kantakouzenos was not a power-drunk, over-ambitious schemer. And again, that is not my conclusion, but that offered by actual historians, on whose work we are compelled to rely per WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

First, it's worth noting that Wikipedia articles come from, by and large, from cores established by the 1911 Britannica, which largely cribbed from the EB9. That's where most POVy statements come from and they're worth noting, with caveats and citations. (The cribbed articles preceded the influx of inline cites.) Now, that said, if you can't understand what Constantine is telling you, you might want to consider the insult to your intelligence warranted. By the 14th century, the Byzantines had a long, long history of beheading even their most capable and loyal commanders over rumors and political maneuvering. It's entirely reasonable to imagine, as the EB writers did and most Byzantines scholars still do, that he was forced into rebellion in order to ensure his own safety.

Now, that said, the queen's advisors could be mentioned and, yes, the passages lifted from the EB should now be cited inline rather than left with a lazy attribution at the foot of the page. — LlywelynII 02:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. Just because you've read a few that use that source, there are far more that do not originate with Brittanica. 50.111.40.79 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done — LlywelynII 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Dated, but the EB mentions

• Val Parisot (1845), Cantacuzéne, Homme d'État et Historien. (in French)
• Gibbon, E., Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. lxiii.
• Krumbacher, C. (1897), Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur. (in German)

 — LlywelynII 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Usurped ?

If this guy was the usurper in the first place, then when he was deposed, I don't think that is a usurpation.Lathamibird (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The supposed 'usurper' who took his place was the legal heir to John VI's predecessor, making the charge of usurpation entirely unbelievable. Unless someone can provide a reliable source naming John V as a usurper, this statement has to go. I'm replacing 'usurped' with the far more neutral 'deposed' now, if anyone can provide a reliable source for it it can be re-inserted. Also, I'm changing "retired" to "was made to retire" in line with the longer explanation given in the article on John V Palaiologos.82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Date of death

Is it really the case that he died on exactly the same day, 15 June 1383, as his successor Matthew Kantakouzenos? That seems extraordinarily unlikely in itself, and what's even more unlikely is that no mention is made of this amazing coincidence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)