This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constantine XI Palaiologos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 6, 2010, January 6, 2011, January 6, 2012, January 6, 2014, January 6, 2015, January 6, 2016, January 6, 2017, January 6, 2021, and January 6, 2024. |
Index
|
||
There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. -- Panairjdde 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Quoth the article:
In a variant of the Byzantine practice of adopting the distaff surname where it connoted more prestige, Constantine liked to be known by his mother's name of Dragaš (Serbian: Драгаш) or Dragasēs, which she inherited from her Serbian father.
Is this really meant to imply that the Serbian name had more presige than Palaiologos? I find this sort of hard to believe... -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that if he had a greek name the latinised form should stick with the greek spelling. My name is Καρανικολας(Karanicholas). If some1 spelt it karanicholus that would be wrong (i no my latinised name shouldnt have an h in it but by grandfather cant spell:P)-- Slogankid 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Although ethnomartyr is the most literal transliteration of ἐθνομάρτυρας, it's somewhat misleading, since the word means something more like national martyr rather than ethnic martyr. The distinction intended is between religious martyrs who died for their faith and national martyrs who died for their country. Compare Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο which is usually translated as National Archaeological Museum, not Ethnic Archaeological Museum. (Some googling finds both "ethnomartyr" and "national martyr" are used in English in this context, although both are rare enough that it's hard to weigh their relative usage.) -- Delirium 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
His commemoration appears in the calendars and books published by the Greeks, the Serbs and the Russians. To be a saint of one national Church is to be a saint of the entire Orthodox Church - and he appears in three! Ergo, he is a saint not only of the Greek Church. InfernoXV 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Look this doesn't matter that much, but I'll insist on removing the statement about the Roman Empire. It's just an abundant statement which only serves at confusing the readers. Someone who knows about medieval history will know already the relation between Rome, Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire, so this won't help him. But to someone who is trying to learn this can only be confusing. Historians and civilisations have decided to differentiate Byzantium from the Roman Empire, without denying that it was its political continuation. Whether you like it or not that's how it's always been, and anyone who refuses to accept it is just on the POV side. Miskin 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not "how it's always been." It was in the 19th century that biased Western historians began to widely use the term "Byzantine." It was always meant in a biased Western POV fashion. This bias is very well documented. To this day the Middle East called the Greeks "Romans" and Greece "Rome" or "Land of the Romans" and the entire rest of Europe "Franks." Funny to try to differentiate "Byzantium" from the rest of Roman history simply because of the supposed Hellenization of the Empire once the capitol was moved to Constantinople... because when Pagan Rome conquered the Greek City States in the centuries before Christ they were in turn conquered by Greek culture and became thoroughly Hellenized. This is a very clear, straight fact. Indeed, during the Pagan Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the time of Christ the Koine Greek language was the international language of it's day (a legacy of Alexander) and the Aramaic language of Jesus was Hellenistic Aramaic. It would be very difficult to try to separate the Roman Empire from it Hellenic heritage, even long before Christ. Thus, the Western POV is clearly evident in this article. Call it the Eastern Roman Empire if you must. Call it Byzantium. Call it the "Empire of the Greeks" as it's medieval contemporaries did (derogatory; Latin Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox bias of it's day, see: Great Schism), but the Western view must be balanced by the Eastern view. Otherwise we risk allowing Wikipedia to become a tool for propagandists.
As to the Sainthood of Constantine XI; please read this article written, perhaps ideally, by a Byzantine Catholic on the subject. He is most certainly considered a Saint (and National Hero of Greece): http://rumkatkilise.org/statusconstantineXI.htm -- Nikoz78 ( talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Constantine was a Greek catholic, not an Orthodox. The Orthodox who believe him to have been a saint are in error.-- 131.220.75.84 ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought...The Greek composer Stamatis Spanoudalkis has produced an excellent suite of music entitled: The Marble King (I think...Unfortunately I've lost my copy!)It's theme is the fall of Constantinople and the idea that Constantine XI will return one day. Mickmct ( talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, This page marked the date of Constantine's birth as February 8, 1405, citing Nicol's The Immortal Emperor as a source. According to Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople 1453 and to the article on the emperor in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he was rather born in 1404. I've taken the liberty of changing the date to 1404 from 1405 (two sources vs. one), but since there seems to be some divergence on the subject, feel free to argue the point further and change it back. Have a nice day! Hobbitte ( talk) 07:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Hobbitte
The legend of Constantine XI being turned into marble is thus: that once the Hellenic people (Greeks) "recapture Constantinople" the last Roman/Byzantine Emperor will rise to rule a Byzantium reborn. The article used to reflect this fact. I understand that such a legend still has political concerns today, but that is the truth of this old legend; it makes little sense to reword such a legend just to downplay it's controversial nature. This is an encyclopedia. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The ghost of Constantine XI IS prophesized to ride into the city (Constantinople/Istanbul) when Turkey becomes a Christian land again. I could find sources for that if you all insist on it, but can you please let me put that in and leave it there? -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.185.226 ( talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that statue is from Athens, not Mistras. I've seen it there myself and taken pictures of it. I'm not going to change it since I'm not sure if there is an identical statue in Mistras or not. - HawkeyE ( talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) |
An IP keeps adding original research from WP:PRIMARY. The IP edit mentions:
In another account relayed by Niccolò Barbaro and Leonard of Chios, Constantine despaired and urged his soldiers to kill him before the gate broke; none would, and he was cut down as the Turks entered the city.<ref name="Nicol"/>
No one could hear any news of the Emperor, what he had been doing, or whether he was dead or alive, but some said that his body had been seen among the corpses, and it was said that he had hanged himself at the moment when the Turks broke in at the San Romano gate.
which as can be seen is completely the opposite of what the IP is claiming. This is falsification of sources and the IP should stop this disruption. Dr. K. 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You folks seem too caught up in edit patrolling to notice that you're wrong. My initial edits had sources, if not a formal citation. You wanted a citation. All right, fortunately the text I was working from here is an excerpt of a source already used in the article. So I cited it. Please click the link and refer to the passage that mentions Leonardo of Chios. Then you may restore my changes and leave an apology on my talk page. 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This is really quite absurd. The only reason we're *at* a three-revert situation is Dr.K.'s insistence on attributing bad faith to my changes (despite actually keeping some of them, which I appreciate). What's the next step? 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 23:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A marginal note in the text of Barbaro's Diary repeats the statement of Leonardo, that Constantine begged in vain to be put to the sword. He then fell in the crush, rose again, fell once more, and so died.(10)
[Leonardo] reports that once the valiant Genoese captain Giustiniani had been wounded and forced to withdraw in the fight, Constantine's courage failed.
In another account relayed by Niccolò Barbaro and Leonard of Chios,is not in the citation you provided. The account of his courage "failing" is only attrbuted to Leonardo, not Barbaro. Also there is no mention by either Barbaro or Leonardo that "Constantine's courage failed shortly before the Turks broke through the walls". This is synthesis on your part. Dr. K. 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to edit it in so the entire flow is clear. If you revert, please specify your objection here. It would help if you could avoid the template jargon. You may think it promotes civility, but it really just comes off as robotic and unreasonable. 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Goalposts being moved? Nothing of the kind. As I told you already, WP:PRIMARY sources should not be used without context. We have a very reliable source, as Athenean told you, analysing the primary sources and providing needed context about their lack of impartiality. On a practical note, how did Leonardo make the fanciful observation that Constantine's "courage failed"? Did he speak to Constantine? Did Constantine confess to someone and Leonardo picked it up from some manuscript? That's a very subjective observation about Constantine which is not repeated by any other secondary reliable source. This is a clear case of WP:UNDUE coverage of the POV of an ancient person who has not been validated by other historians regarding his account about Constantine's courage having "failed". I am not going to imitate your tactics and tell you that I get the distinct impression from your edit-warring and your insistence on adding this discredited material that you want to paint Constantine as a coward. But at least you should stop repeating this unsubstantiated nonsense because it doesn't help your arguments. Dr. K. 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope this is not a stupid question, but why is the name spelled with "C"? There is no "C" in the Greek alphabet, so the correct spelling would be "Konstantin". 2003:7A:8E08:1A39:8132:A52C:D97F:1599 ( talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The only controversy I see in the article is Constantine's unionist sentiments. Is that the "controversy" which keeps Constantine as "not been officially canonized by either Church", or is there more, or something else? Thanks. Jyg ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Кардам: will you please stop adding the "citation needed" template everywhere in the article? I've gone through and reverted your edits since I personally made sure that there is not any uncited information in the article. This is an important article that gets a lot of views and adding a template that has no reason to be here is unnecessary and insinuates that the article is of poor quality. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator, it was not my intention to harm the article. Because there are long paragraphs and a single reference at the end, I thought that you forgot to add more references. That the reason that I added citation required in each subtitle. My apologies. Kardam ( talk) 08:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Hello Ichthyovenator. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{ U}}, {{ ping}}, or {{ re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) |
The second concern was the religious disunity within what little remained of his empire; with much of the Byzantine populace refusing to accept a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, something Constantine and his predecessor John VIII had believed necessary to secure military aid from Catholic Europe.Everything after the semicolon sounds like an incomplete fragment, but from editing the article, everything after the semicolon elaborates on everything before it, rather than introducing a new idea?
Because of a lack of contemporary sources, most writings of Constantine having been composed after his death, accounts of his life, before and after he eventually became emperor, are often heavily skewed, portraying his life with a view of his final fate, typically highly eulogizing in nature.This sentence tries to incorporate a lot of ideas but is confusing to read. Is the main idea of this sentence that accounts of his life are usually skewed?
The situation looked grim.I'm unsure of the addition of this sentence. It doesn't provide any encyclopedic knowledge and readers should be able to understand what the situation is like without being told as such.
As Manuel II had once hoped years ago, John too hoped to rally support from Western Europe.Which sentence should this go with: the one before or the one after it? With a little bit of tweaking it can be integrated into either. If John also had the motive of receiving Western Europe's support by giving the Republic of Venice the city of Thessaloniki, it can go with the previous sentence. If it's a separate matter, it can merge with the next sentence.
Manuel believed that an eventual church union, which would become John's goal, would only antagonize the Turks and the empire's populace, possibly even leading to civil war.I don't think there are any other important Manuels, so I think it should be safe to remove all instances of the regnal number after his first mention?
Having been impressed by his brother during the 1422 Ottoman siege, and trusting him more than his other brothers, Constantine was given the title of despot and left to rule Constantinople as regent.Who was impressed by his brother? John?
Because their brother Theodore expressed his discontent over his position as Despot of the Morea to John during the latter's visit in 1423, John soon recalled Constantine from Mesembria and designated him as Theodore's successor.Boldly edited, removed mention of John's visit to Venice as it didn't seem like an important detail to include. That's fine?
Theodore did not make way for Constantine or Thomas at Mystras.This sentence can be integrated with the next one. What does "make way" mean in this context? Theodore did not give his brothers the capital?
The campaign, which was unsuccessful, possibly due to Theodore's reluctance to partake, was Thomas's first experience of war.The sentence as phrased sounds like it would be more appropriate on an article about Thomas as it's heavily weighted on him. What about this: The campaign ended in failure, possibly due to Theodore's reluctant participation and Thomas' inexperience?
Constantine and Sphrantzes, confident that the city's many Greek inhabitants would support their takeover, marched towards Patras on 1 March 1429 and on 20 March, he besieged the city.Who's "he"? Constantine? Sphrantzes?
On 1 June, Constantine returned to the city and, since the Archbishop had not returned, met with the city's leading men in the city's Cathedral of St. Andrew on 4 June and they accepted him as their new lord.Is there a reason why "leading men" was used and not "leaders"?
Although many in the Byzantine Empire opposed a Union of the Churches [...]Is "Union of the Churches" the official name of the event?
John brought a large delegation to Italy, including Joseph II, the Patriarch of Constantinople [...]Are Joseph II and the Patriarch of Constantinople the same person or separate?
Turahan was sent south to take Mystras and devastate Constantine's lands while Murad II led his forces in the north of the Peloponnese.Were Murad's forces already in the north or did they travel to the north?
Other than Mehmed II, Orhan was the only known living male member of the Ottoman dynasty and he represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate.Was he himself a potential rival or did he represent someone else that was a potential rival?
Whether all the attendants agreed with the theology used might not have made much difference; it might simply have been comforting to be in a large crowd in the face of the imminent danger.I'm doubting the need for this sentence to be in the article as I don't see the encyclopedic value behind it. If it has to stay, wrap it in quotes? Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used for this.
[...] united them in fear and panic(removed "common"), so mention of the unity between the two factions should be sufficient.
If he had any fears about the impending battle, Constantine kept them to himself and instead, he prepared for the impending attack.Is this sentence necessary? Sounds better placed in a narrative.
In addition to the limited western aid, the Ottoman pretender held as a hostage in the city, Orhan Çelebi, and his considerable retinue of Ottoman troops, also assisted in the city's defense.What does it mean by Orhan being an "Ottoman pretender"? I only remember him being described as "represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate".
Mehmed ordered his admiral, Suleiman Baltoghlu, to capture the ships and their crews, or not return alive.Is this verbatim from the source?
[...] as such, Constantine's death also marked the final end of the Roman Empire [...]What's the difference between a "final end" and a "non-final" end?
[...] for instance " Michael the Drunkard".Original formatting preserved. What's with the underlining? Emphasis?
[...] for instance "Constantine, son of Manuel" [...]Original formatting preserved. Same issue as above.
Demetrios was granted the Constantine's former capital, Mystras, and authority over the southern and eastern parts of the despotate, while Thomas ruled Corinthia and the northwest, variously using Patras or Leontari as his capital.Thomas constantly alternated between the two as capital cities?
Throughout the long winter of 1452 and 1453, Constantine ordered the citizens of Constantinople, both men and women [...]Do "men and women" need to explicitly be stated?
Some of the city's Genoese population also aided the Byzantines and notable Genoese aid came in the form of Giovanni Giustiniani, a renowned soldier known for his skill in siege warfare and arrived as a volunteer in January 1453, bringing 700 soldiers with him.The two (Genoese population and Giustiniani) are closely related but should be separated by sentence. Coming back to this later.
Giustiniani was mortally wounded by a shot through the arm-hole of his cuirass.Is it an arrow shot?
These plans were thwarted once Theodore changed his mind about the whole affair, but John still wished to place Constantine in the Morea.Were the plans thwarted, though? Constantine eventually became a co-despot. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Though Theodore was now happy to rule in the Morea, he could use some support as he had been beset by enemies throughout the 1420s.Is everything past the comma John's thoughts? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
As before in Constantine's life, other things would get in the way and Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia.Any examples of "other things"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
On 24 May, there was a lunar eclipse for three hours, harkening to a prophecy that Constantinople would fall when the moon was on wane.Did the prophecy use the words "was on wane", and if so, was it to describe a natural moon waning? Lunar eclipses are sometimes referred to as "blood moons", so they could still be seen in their entirety. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
So it seems that the moon disappeared for a bit before reappearing on the same night which would definitely freak people out. I'd like to use some of the exact wording from the source, but I'm not sure if that is what was truly written in Barbaro's account. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)On this same day, the twenty-second of May, at the first hour of the night, there appeared a wonderful sign in the sky, which was to tell Constantine the worthy Emperor of Constantinople that his proud empire was about to come to an end, as it did. The sign was of this form and condition: at the first hour after sunset the moon rose, being at this time at the full, so that it should have risen in the form of a complete circle; but it rose as if it were no more than a three-day moon, with only a little of it showing, although the air was clear and unclouded, pure as crystal. The moon stayed in this form for about four hours, and gradually increased to a full circle, so that at the sixth hour of the night it was fully formed. When we Christians and the pagans had seen this marvelous sign, the Emperor of Constantinople was greatly afraid of it, and so were all his nobles, because the Greeks had a prophecy which said that Constantinople would never fall until the full moon should give a sign, and this was the reason for the fear which the Greeks felt. But the Turks made great festivity in their camp for joy at the sign, because they believed that now victory was in their hands, as in truth it was.
Hope to read your replies soon! —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Tenryuu: Thank you for taking the time to go through this massive article! I've replied to your questions :) Ichthyovenator ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ichthyovenator: Hope you're doing well. I think I've done all I can here, so I'll consider the request complete. If you have anything further you wish to discuss about this article feel free to ping me on here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "His opinions got invalided later by the Catholic Church." from the note on the religion parameter of the infobox, it's vandalism that was added by Gurylondonic 2804:14C:55:8D94:A4D7:EC78:2E76:7B32 ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is the lead so long? A lot of background stuff, needs cleanup. Beshogur ( talk) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC) I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have
Giannisistorikos Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have
Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:
Both of the above could be reduced to their essence with links provided to the main articles. I’d appreciate feedback to see if we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Allreet ( talk) 08:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
After Constantine XI’s demise in 1453, there is only the one Roman emperor left in the western side which is HRE Frederick III. Should Frederick III be the successor of Emperor Constantine XI? because he descended from Emperor Theodore I Laskaris through his daughter Maria Laskarina, wife of Belá IV of Hungary. IMPERATORMANYU ( talk) 05:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constantine XI Palaiologos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 6, 2010, January 6, 2011, January 6, 2012, January 6, 2014, January 6, 2015, January 6, 2016, January 6, 2017, January 6, 2021, and January 6, 2024. |
Index
|
||
There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. -- Panairjdde 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Quoth the article:
In a variant of the Byzantine practice of adopting the distaff surname where it connoted more prestige, Constantine liked to be known by his mother's name of Dragaš (Serbian: Драгаш) or Dragasēs, which she inherited from her Serbian father.
Is this really meant to imply that the Serbian name had more presige than Palaiologos? I find this sort of hard to believe... -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that if he had a greek name the latinised form should stick with the greek spelling. My name is Καρανικολας(Karanicholas). If some1 spelt it karanicholus that would be wrong (i no my latinised name shouldnt have an h in it but by grandfather cant spell:P)-- Slogankid 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Although ethnomartyr is the most literal transliteration of ἐθνομάρτυρας, it's somewhat misleading, since the word means something more like national martyr rather than ethnic martyr. The distinction intended is between religious martyrs who died for their faith and national martyrs who died for their country. Compare Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο which is usually translated as National Archaeological Museum, not Ethnic Archaeological Museum. (Some googling finds both "ethnomartyr" and "national martyr" are used in English in this context, although both are rare enough that it's hard to weigh their relative usage.) -- Delirium 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
His commemoration appears in the calendars and books published by the Greeks, the Serbs and the Russians. To be a saint of one national Church is to be a saint of the entire Orthodox Church - and he appears in three! Ergo, he is a saint not only of the Greek Church. InfernoXV 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Look this doesn't matter that much, but I'll insist on removing the statement about the Roman Empire. It's just an abundant statement which only serves at confusing the readers. Someone who knows about medieval history will know already the relation between Rome, Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire, so this won't help him. But to someone who is trying to learn this can only be confusing. Historians and civilisations have decided to differentiate Byzantium from the Roman Empire, without denying that it was its political continuation. Whether you like it or not that's how it's always been, and anyone who refuses to accept it is just on the POV side. Miskin 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not "how it's always been." It was in the 19th century that biased Western historians began to widely use the term "Byzantine." It was always meant in a biased Western POV fashion. This bias is very well documented. To this day the Middle East called the Greeks "Romans" and Greece "Rome" or "Land of the Romans" and the entire rest of Europe "Franks." Funny to try to differentiate "Byzantium" from the rest of Roman history simply because of the supposed Hellenization of the Empire once the capitol was moved to Constantinople... because when Pagan Rome conquered the Greek City States in the centuries before Christ they were in turn conquered by Greek culture and became thoroughly Hellenized. This is a very clear, straight fact. Indeed, during the Pagan Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the time of Christ the Koine Greek language was the international language of it's day (a legacy of Alexander) and the Aramaic language of Jesus was Hellenistic Aramaic. It would be very difficult to try to separate the Roman Empire from it Hellenic heritage, even long before Christ. Thus, the Western POV is clearly evident in this article. Call it the Eastern Roman Empire if you must. Call it Byzantium. Call it the "Empire of the Greeks" as it's medieval contemporaries did (derogatory; Latin Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox bias of it's day, see: Great Schism), but the Western view must be balanced by the Eastern view. Otherwise we risk allowing Wikipedia to become a tool for propagandists.
As to the Sainthood of Constantine XI; please read this article written, perhaps ideally, by a Byzantine Catholic on the subject. He is most certainly considered a Saint (and National Hero of Greece): http://rumkatkilise.org/statusconstantineXI.htm -- Nikoz78 ( talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Constantine was a Greek catholic, not an Orthodox. The Orthodox who believe him to have been a saint are in error.-- 131.220.75.84 ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought...The Greek composer Stamatis Spanoudalkis has produced an excellent suite of music entitled: The Marble King (I think...Unfortunately I've lost my copy!)It's theme is the fall of Constantinople and the idea that Constantine XI will return one day. Mickmct ( talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, This page marked the date of Constantine's birth as February 8, 1405, citing Nicol's The Immortal Emperor as a source. According to Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople 1453 and to the article on the emperor in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he was rather born in 1404. I've taken the liberty of changing the date to 1404 from 1405 (two sources vs. one), but since there seems to be some divergence on the subject, feel free to argue the point further and change it back. Have a nice day! Hobbitte ( talk) 07:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Hobbitte
The legend of Constantine XI being turned into marble is thus: that once the Hellenic people (Greeks) "recapture Constantinople" the last Roman/Byzantine Emperor will rise to rule a Byzantium reborn. The article used to reflect this fact. I understand that such a legend still has political concerns today, but that is the truth of this old legend; it makes little sense to reword such a legend just to downplay it's controversial nature. This is an encyclopedia. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The ghost of Constantine XI IS prophesized to ride into the city (Constantinople/Istanbul) when Turkey becomes a Christian land again. I could find sources for that if you all insist on it, but can you please let me put that in and leave it there? -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.185.226 ( talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that statue is from Athens, not Mistras. I've seen it there myself and taken pictures of it. I'm not going to change it since I'm not sure if there is an identical statue in Mistras or not. - HawkeyE ( talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) |
An IP keeps adding original research from WP:PRIMARY. The IP edit mentions:
In another account relayed by Niccolò Barbaro and Leonard of Chios, Constantine despaired and urged his soldiers to kill him before the gate broke; none would, and he was cut down as the Turks entered the city.<ref name="Nicol"/>
No one could hear any news of the Emperor, what he had been doing, or whether he was dead or alive, but some said that his body had been seen among the corpses, and it was said that he had hanged himself at the moment when the Turks broke in at the San Romano gate.
which as can be seen is completely the opposite of what the IP is claiming. This is falsification of sources and the IP should stop this disruption. Dr. K. 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You folks seem too caught up in edit patrolling to notice that you're wrong. My initial edits had sources, if not a formal citation. You wanted a citation. All right, fortunately the text I was working from here is an excerpt of a source already used in the article. So I cited it. Please click the link and refer to the passage that mentions Leonardo of Chios. Then you may restore my changes and leave an apology on my talk page. 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This is really quite absurd. The only reason we're *at* a three-revert situation is Dr.K.'s insistence on attributing bad faith to my changes (despite actually keeping some of them, which I appreciate). What's the next step? 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 23:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A marginal note in the text of Barbaro's Diary repeats the statement of Leonardo, that Constantine begged in vain to be put to the sword. He then fell in the crush, rose again, fell once more, and so died.(10)
[Leonardo] reports that once the valiant Genoese captain Giustiniani had been wounded and forced to withdraw in the fight, Constantine's courage failed.
In another account relayed by Niccolò Barbaro and Leonard of Chios,is not in the citation you provided. The account of his courage "failing" is only attrbuted to Leonardo, not Barbaro. Also there is no mention by either Barbaro or Leonardo that "Constantine's courage failed shortly before the Turks broke through the walls". This is synthesis on your part. Dr. K. 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to edit it in so the entire flow is clear. If you revert, please specify your objection here. It would help if you could avoid the template jargon. You may think it promotes civility, but it really just comes off as robotic and unreasonable. 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Goalposts being moved? Nothing of the kind. As I told you already, WP:PRIMARY sources should not be used without context. We have a very reliable source, as Athenean told you, analysing the primary sources and providing needed context about their lack of impartiality. On a practical note, how did Leonardo make the fanciful observation that Constantine's "courage failed"? Did he speak to Constantine? Did Constantine confess to someone and Leonardo picked it up from some manuscript? That's a very subjective observation about Constantine which is not repeated by any other secondary reliable source. This is a clear case of WP:UNDUE coverage of the POV of an ancient person who has not been validated by other historians regarding his account about Constantine's courage having "failed". I am not going to imitate your tactics and tell you that I get the distinct impression from your edit-warring and your insistence on adding this discredited material that you want to paint Constantine as a coward. But at least you should stop repeating this unsubstantiated nonsense because it doesn't help your arguments. Dr. K. 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope this is not a stupid question, but why is the name spelled with "C"? There is no "C" in the Greek alphabet, so the correct spelling would be "Konstantin". 2003:7A:8E08:1A39:8132:A52C:D97F:1599 ( talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The only controversy I see in the article is Constantine's unionist sentiments. Is that the "controversy" which keeps Constantine as "not been officially canonized by either Church", or is there more, or something else? Thanks. Jyg ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Кардам: will you please stop adding the "citation needed" template everywhere in the article? I've gone through and reverted your edits since I personally made sure that there is not any uncited information in the article. This is an important article that gets a lot of views and adding a template that has no reason to be here is unnecessary and insinuates that the article is of poor quality. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator, it was not my intention to harm the article. Because there are long paragraphs and a single reference at the end, I thought that you forgot to add more references. That the reason that I added citation required in each subtitle. My apologies. Kardam ( talk) 08:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Hello Ichthyovenator. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{ U}}, {{ ping}}, or {{ re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) |
The second concern was the religious disunity within what little remained of his empire; with much of the Byzantine populace refusing to accept a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, something Constantine and his predecessor John VIII had believed necessary to secure military aid from Catholic Europe.Everything after the semicolon sounds like an incomplete fragment, but from editing the article, everything after the semicolon elaborates on everything before it, rather than introducing a new idea?
Because of a lack of contemporary sources, most writings of Constantine having been composed after his death, accounts of his life, before and after he eventually became emperor, are often heavily skewed, portraying his life with a view of his final fate, typically highly eulogizing in nature.This sentence tries to incorporate a lot of ideas but is confusing to read. Is the main idea of this sentence that accounts of his life are usually skewed?
The situation looked grim.I'm unsure of the addition of this sentence. It doesn't provide any encyclopedic knowledge and readers should be able to understand what the situation is like without being told as such.
As Manuel II had once hoped years ago, John too hoped to rally support from Western Europe.Which sentence should this go with: the one before or the one after it? With a little bit of tweaking it can be integrated into either. If John also had the motive of receiving Western Europe's support by giving the Republic of Venice the city of Thessaloniki, it can go with the previous sentence. If it's a separate matter, it can merge with the next sentence.
Manuel believed that an eventual church union, which would become John's goal, would only antagonize the Turks and the empire's populace, possibly even leading to civil war.I don't think there are any other important Manuels, so I think it should be safe to remove all instances of the regnal number after his first mention?
Having been impressed by his brother during the 1422 Ottoman siege, and trusting him more than his other brothers, Constantine was given the title of despot and left to rule Constantinople as regent.Who was impressed by his brother? John?
Because their brother Theodore expressed his discontent over his position as Despot of the Morea to John during the latter's visit in 1423, John soon recalled Constantine from Mesembria and designated him as Theodore's successor.Boldly edited, removed mention of John's visit to Venice as it didn't seem like an important detail to include. That's fine?
Theodore did not make way for Constantine or Thomas at Mystras.This sentence can be integrated with the next one. What does "make way" mean in this context? Theodore did not give his brothers the capital?
The campaign, which was unsuccessful, possibly due to Theodore's reluctance to partake, was Thomas's first experience of war.The sentence as phrased sounds like it would be more appropriate on an article about Thomas as it's heavily weighted on him. What about this: The campaign ended in failure, possibly due to Theodore's reluctant participation and Thomas' inexperience?
Constantine and Sphrantzes, confident that the city's many Greek inhabitants would support their takeover, marched towards Patras on 1 March 1429 and on 20 March, he besieged the city.Who's "he"? Constantine? Sphrantzes?
On 1 June, Constantine returned to the city and, since the Archbishop had not returned, met with the city's leading men in the city's Cathedral of St. Andrew on 4 June and they accepted him as their new lord.Is there a reason why "leading men" was used and not "leaders"?
Although many in the Byzantine Empire opposed a Union of the Churches [...]Is "Union of the Churches" the official name of the event?
John brought a large delegation to Italy, including Joseph II, the Patriarch of Constantinople [...]Are Joseph II and the Patriarch of Constantinople the same person or separate?
Turahan was sent south to take Mystras and devastate Constantine's lands while Murad II led his forces in the north of the Peloponnese.Were Murad's forces already in the north or did they travel to the north?
Other than Mehmed II, Orhan was the only known living male member of the Ottoman dynasty and he represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate.Was he himself a potential rival or did he represent someone else that was a potential rival?
Whether all the attendants agreed with the theology used might not have made much difference; it might simply have been comforting to be in a large crowd in the face of the imminent danger.I'm doubting the need for this sentence to be in the article as I don't see the encyclopedic value behind it. If it has to stay, wrap it in quotes? Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used for this.
[...] united them in fear and panic(removed "common"), so mention of the unity between the two factions should be sufficient.
If he had any fears about the impending battle, Constantine kept them to himself and instead, he prepared for the impending attack.Is this sentence necessary? Sounds better placed in a narrative.
In addition to the limited western aid, the Ottoman pretender held as a hostage in the city, Orhan Çelebi, and his considerable retinue of Ottoman troops, also assisted in the city's defense.What does it mean by Orhan being an "Ottoman pretender"? I only remember him being described as "represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate".
Mehmed ordered his admiral, Suleiman Baltoghlu, to capture the ships and their crews, or not return alive.Is this verbatim from the source?
[...] as such, Constantine's death also marked the final end of the Roman Empire [...]What's the difference between a "final end" and a "non-final" end?
[...] for instance " Michael the Drunkard".Original formatting preserved. What's with the underlining? Emphasis?
[...] for instance "Constantine, son of Manuel" [...]Original formatting preserved. Same issue as above.
Demetrios was granted the Constantine's former capital, Mystras, and authority over the southern and eastern parts of the despotate, while Thomas ruled Corinthia and the northwest, variously using Patras or Leontari as his capital.Thomas constantly alternated between the two as capital cities?
Throughout the long winter of 1452 and 1453, Constantine ordered the citizens of Constantinople, both men and women [...]Do "men and women" need to explicitly be stated?
Some of the city's Genoese population also aided the Byzantines and notable Genoese aid came in the form of Giovanni Giustiniani, a renowned soldier known for his skill in siege warfare and arrived as a volunteer in January 1453, bringing 700 soldiers with him.The two (Genoese population and Giustiniani) are closely related but should be separated by sentence. Coming back to this later.
Giustiniani was mortally wounded by a shot through the arm-hole of his cuirass.Is it an arrow shot?
These plans were thwarted once Theodore changed his mind about the whole affair, but John still wished to place Constantine in the Morea.Were the plans thwarted, though? Constantine eventually became a co-despot. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Though Theodore was now happy to rule in the Morea, he could use some support as he had been beset by enemies throughout the 1420s.Is everything past the comma John's thoughts? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
As before in Constantine's life, other things would get in the way and Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia.Any examples of "other things"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
On 24 May, there was a lunar eclipse for three hours, harkening to a prophecy that Constantinople would fall when the moon was on wane.Did the prophecy use the words "was on wane", and if so, was it to describe a natural moon waning? Lunar eclipses are sometimes referred to as "blood moons", so they could still be seen in their entirety. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
So it seems that the moon disappeared for a bit before reappearing on the same night which would definitely freak people out. I'd like to use some of the exact wording from the source, but I'm not sure if that is what was truly written in Barbaro's account. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)On this same day, the twenty-second of May, at the first hour of the night, there appeared a wonderful sign in the sky, which was to tell Constantine the worthy Emperor of Constantinople that his proud empire was about to come to an end, as it did. The sign was of this form and condition: at the first hour after sunset the moon rose, being at this time at the full, so that it should have risen in the form of a complete circle; but it rose as if it were no more than a three-day moon, with only a little of it showing, although the air was clear and unclouded, pure as crystal. The moon stayed in this form for about four hours, and gradually increased to a full circle, so that at the sixth hour of the night it was fully formed. When we Christians and the pagans had seen this marvelous sign, the Emperor of Constantinople was greatly afraid of it, and so were all his nobles, because the Greeks had a prophecy which said that Constantinople would never fall until the full moon should give a sign, and this was the reason for the fear which the Greeks felt. But the Turks made great festivity in their camp for joy at the sign, because they believed that now victory was in their hands, as in truth it was.
Hope to read your replies soon! —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Tenryuu: Thank you for taking the time to go through this massive article! I've replied to your questions :) Ichthyovenator ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ichthyovenator: Hope you're doing well. I think I've done all I can here, so I'll consider the request complete. If you have anything further you wish to discuss about this article feel free to ping me on here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "His opinions got invalided later by the Catholic Church." from the note on the religion parameter of the infobox, it's vandalism that was added by Gurylondonic 2804:14C:55:8D94:A4D7:EC78:2E76:7B32 ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is the lead so long? A lot of background stuff, needs cleanup. Beshogur ( talk) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC) I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have
Giannisistorikos Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giannisistorikos ( talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have
Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:
Both of the above could be reduced to their essence with links provided to the main articles. I’d appreciate feedback to see if we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Allreet ( talk) 08:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
After Constantine XI’s demise in 1453, there is only the one Roman emperor left in the western side which is HRE Frederick III. Should Frederick III be the successor of Emperor Constantine XI? because he descended from Emperor Theodore I Laskaris through his daughter Maria Laskarina, wife of Belá IV of Hungary. IMPERATORMANYU ( talk) 05:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)