Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. --Panairjdde 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Distaff prestige

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)

I do not know if we can generalize but the adoption of the distaff surname by emperors (with no exclusion of the regularly inherited one) can be observed in a couple of other cases: Theodore II Doukas Laskaris (sometimes just Laskaris) and Matthew Asan(es) Kantakouzenos. But yes, for all their importance, the parvenu Dragaš family probably do not quite justify this wording in the article (though that does say "in a variant..."). They were certainly less prestigeous than the Palaiologoi. The emperor probably wished to honor his mother and her lineage. Most Byzantines were actually quite happy to pile up as many surnames as they could lay claim to. The first three Palaiologoi, Michael VIII, Andronikos II, and Michael IX, in fact employed an elaborate surname, as follows: Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos. I suppose that after the dynasty had spent 60 years on the throne, plain Palaiologos sufficed for their successors. Imladjov 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Us or Os

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)

In general yes, however, the name is Παλαιολόγος, not Παλαιολόγας, so although the "us" latinization would be unusual in your case, it's not if the name ends on "ος". --Atmilios 17:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ethnomartyr

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)

Saint?

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)

Myth and music

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)

Date of birth

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

I`ll change it back,since Runciman work is from 1965,while Nicol is from 1992.Also,ODB (from 1991) states that he was born in Constantinople,on 8 February 1405. (I have also some history book in serbian from 1989 with same date,but it`s not first class source for this.) CrniBombarder!!! (†) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Legend Misrepresented

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)

Prophecy

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)

Somebody has since added a reference to what I was referring to, so I appreciate that. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.186.32 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern Statue

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)

There are two statues, one in Mistras, and one in front of the Athens Metropolitan Church (IIRC). They both look very much alike, but I cannot say whether they are identical. However, the statue in question is from Athens, as the original Flickr account suggests. Constantine ✍ 08:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring by IP adding original research from primary sources

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"/>

But Niccolò Barbaro mentions:

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)

I completely concur with Dr.K. I suggest the IP brings up reliable counter sourcing if he really believes that material was stated by Barbaro in any way. Nevertheless, as of what we can see so far, this is 100% disruption based on source falsification. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 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)

I am not the only one disagreeing with you. See above, another editor agrees with me. Stop also the personal attacks about bad faith. You did not supply a quote or page number of the reference so your edit cannot be verified. Now from your link this is the reference to Leonardo that I found.

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)

This quotation sounds nothing like the edit you are trying to edit-war into the article. Can you supply the exact quote which you think verifies your edit? Because I can't find any other such mention in the link you provided, at least one talking about Constantine "despairing before the gate broke", but perhaps you can enlighten us. Dr. K. 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That is the quote that verifies my edit, which if you do not recall, said that Barbaro relayed that account. I'll also draw your attention to this:

[Leonardo] reports that once the valiant Genoese captain Giustiniani had been wounded and forced to withdraw in the fight, Constantine's courage failed.

It is a further absurdity for you to demand that I cease accusations of bad faith, without any acknowledgement of your own prior accusations. Restore my edit, please. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Once more, Leonardo does not mention "despair" and Leonardo does not mention "before the gate broke". Your edit cannot be restored because it is not in the source you provided. Leonardo never wrote the things you claim. Dr. K. 00:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "his courage failed" is not the same as saying "he despaired"? Seriously? Seriously?? All right then, restore it with whatever rewording you see fit. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. "Failing courage" is not equivalent to "despairing". Also you did not address the point of before the gate broke. No reference about that either. Your edit has been completely dismantled. Dr. K. 00:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the nagging suspicion that you are just unwilling to accept any addition to the article that doesn't show Constantine in the proper heroic light. But nonetheless, I propose the following wording: "In another account relayed by Niccolò Barbaro and Leonard of Chios, Constantine's courage failed shortly before the Turks broke through the walls, and he urged his soldiers to kill him; none would, and he was cut down in the as the Turks entered the city." 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in your "nagging suspicions" and once more I remind you of assuming good faith and stopping your personal attacks. Your proposed edit is faulty because the statement 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)

Thanks for the reminder, but I will again attempt to insert some form of the text when the three-revert condition expires, and if you continue to disruptively revert it, I will seek other parties to comment on whether the text is properly cited. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no reason to edit disruptively. So no warnings are needed. My only motivation for editing is to avoid misrepresentation of sources. I would suggest proposing an edit on the talkpage before you add it to the article so any deficiencies can be fixed and if acceptable the edit will not have to be reverted. Dr. K. 01:32, 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)

In future, you may actually want to read your sources before adding them to the article. In this case, Nicol clearly states on p. 89 [1]: The Greek tradition is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the earliest contemporary accounts, Leonardo of Chios and Niccolo Barbaro, were inclined to belittle the bravery of the Greeks. Thus, this reliable secondary source casts doubt over the accounts of Leonardo of Chios and Niccolo Barbaro. A perfect example of why secondary sources should be used, and primary sources not. Oops! Athenean (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So what if they were so inclined? Does that make their account necessarily less accurate than Critobulus's? As I suspected, this is really more about promoting a POV of Constantine's heroism, and not about whether sources are represented accurately. Whatever I do to accommodate objections just results in the goalposts being moved. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your own source says those accounts are less accurate, so the answer is yes. As for the charge of promoting a "POV of Constantine's heroism", i could just as easily argue that you seem obsessed with promoting an opposite POV. Athenean (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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)

Transcription

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)

"controversy surrounding his personal religious beliefs"

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)

"Citation needed"

@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)

@Кардам: Looking through the article I can definitely see how the long paragraphs with the reference at the end might make it look as if some parts are uncited. I apologize if my comment above made it seem like I assumed bad faith; I now see why you were concerned. I just woke up so was just surprised to see the template being added so much. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Right now I've edited it to read: Constantine and his predecessor John VIII both believed a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was needed to secure military aid from Catholic Europe, but much of the Byzantine populace opposed the idea. Do you know if the sources say what the proportion of the population that opposed the union was? I'd like to use "majority" instead of "much" as it is more specific. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything on the exact proportion of the population opposing the church union; most sources simply make it clear that there was a significant number of vocal anti-unionists and enough of them to cause riots in the streets. There were probably more anti-unionists than unionists in Constantinople as the Byzantines had considered the Catholics heretics for almost four centuries (not helped by the events of the Fourth Crusade) but I have not found a source that confidently states this or a more exact estimate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, most (if not all) written about him was written after his death defending Constantinople and since he essentially died a martyr much of it is quite possibly skewed in his favor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Reorganised sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this should probably be removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed sentence.

• 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. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The Thessaloniki business is just John, but both John and Manuel hoped to rally aid from the west (though Manuel eventually gave up on the church union stuff). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Merged sentence with the one after it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other Manuels in the article but they appear significantly later so yes, unless there would be some confusion removing the regnal number everywhere after his first mention should be fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Other Manuels are given brief mentions and are identified with different surnames or regnal numbers, so Manuel II being referred to as Manuel should be fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, John. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

All good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Means that Theodore did not want to share his capital with his brothers, yes (he wouldn't have had to give it up regardless but it seems he wanted it for himself). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "make way" to "share", and connected this sentence with the next one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I believe I took this sentence verbatim from my previous work on Thomas's article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to proposed sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this should have been made clear; the "he" here is Constantine. Sphrantzes was with him (but Constantine led the siege), so could be either "Constantine" or "they" here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Switched "he" to "they", and reorganised the sentence a little. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No reason, "leaders" works better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Switched. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although many in the Byzantine Empire opposed a Union of the Churches [...] Is "Union of the Churches" the official name of the event? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be, so maybe it should not be capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Brought it back to lowercase. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph II was the Patriarch of Constantinople. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I was originally hesitant to use semicolons as dividers for what I perceived to be one entity, but large numbers of bishops, monks and priests made it easier to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Murad led them to the north and then campaigned there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Orhan was the only living male member of the Ottoman dynasty other than Mehmed himself, so he was a potential rival claimant to the Ottoman throne. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced "represented" with "was". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, remove this bit. The idea behind including it was to explain why the anti-unionists would celebrate service together with the unionists but I agree that it is leaning towards unencyclopedic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. The sentence before it talks about the anti-unionist movement dying down, and the sentence before that has [...] 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.

No, it's not really necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "pretender" isn't explicitly correct; he was just a possible contender for the Ottoman throne. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "pretender" to "contender". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mehmed ordered his admiral, Suleiman Baltoghlu, to capture the ships and their crews, or not return alive. Is this verbatim from the source? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to this source anymore but I would hope not, you could rephrase this if that is the concern. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "or not return alive" to "at all costs". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• [...] 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

When the Roman Empire ended is debatable and depends on what you consider to be the Roman Empire. Many see the empire as ending with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476, others with the Islamic conquests of the Levant and northern Africa in the 7th century. 1453 is really as late as you can consider the Roman Empire to have endured without some mental gymnastics. Constantine XI was the last ruler of a sequence of emperors which went back unbroken to the first Roman emperor Augustus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "final" to "definitive". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• [...] for instance "Michael the Drunkard". Original formatting preserved. What's with the underlining? Emphasis? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• [...] for instance "Constantine, son of Manuel" [...] Original formatting preserved. Same issue as above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

For both this one and the previous one, yes, emphasis was the intention here. The underlining is perhaps unnecessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The MoS discourages underlining for emphasis, so I've replaced them with italics. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have alternated between the two. In these cases "capital" is used as a convenience; maybe "residence" would make more sense? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've changed it to read [...] while Thomas ruled Corinthia and the northwest, alternating between Patras and Leontari as his place of residence. This is assuming that only these places were his main residences. How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this works. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no, felt that people might assume "citizens" is just men in this case otherwise but I'm fine with removing it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Question: There is the historical context of what a woman's duties were at that time, so I understand your rationale for doing so. Would women being called upon to support the war effort in those times be seen as "out of the ordinary"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to find decent info on this; women were involved in supporting roles during siege warfare in Ancient Greece (repairing walls, distributing supplies and getting involved in tactics), but that does not mean that this carried over into the Middle Ages two thousand or so years later. Women in Byzantium could inherit property, had legal standing and participated in politcal affairs (and some became absolute monarchs; Irene of Athens, Theodora III Porphyrogenita) but it is difficult to find stuff on their role in military matters. I think it would be strange if the women did not help out when their city was being besieged so perhaps it was not out of the ordinary, no. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. In that case the parenthetical thought "both men and women" will be removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are closely related but I think that it is important to distinquish them too. Giustiniani was Genoese but came to the city on his own accord to help in its defense (he didn't help because he happened to live there). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. My current solution is to introduce Giustiniani in his own sentence. I think it's a little too wordy, but how does In January 1453, notable Genoese aid came arrived voluntarily in the form of Giovanni Giustiniani—a renowned soldier known for his skill in siege warfare—and 700 soldiers under his command look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Giustiniani was mortally wounded by a shot through the arm-hole of his cuirass. Is it an arrow shot? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at this there does not appear to be scholarly consensus that the arm-hole is the correct location (though I recall the source saying this) - he might have been shot in the arm, chest or even leg. Sources also seem to disagree on what kind of shot it was, most saying that he was hit by either a cannonball or a crossbow bolt (if arm-hole is kept, crossbow bolt would be the way to go). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Since the circumstances surrounding Giustiniani's mortal wound are ambiguous, how would removing the specifics sound? The sentence would read: Unbeknownst to anyone, after six hours of fighting, just before sunrise, Giustiniani was mortally wounded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

Yes, the plans succeeded eventually but if Theodore wouldn't have changed his mind Constantine would have become (sole) despot four years earlier. I agree that calling them "thwarted" is unnecessary, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've tried rewriting it as Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John still assigned Constantine to the Morea as a "co-despot". I might remove "co-despot" in a later revision and say something along the lines of [...] still assigned Constantine to the Morea as another despot to rule alongside him. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the current phrasing makes it seem that John assigned Constantine as despot in 1423 (before John's and Constantine's war against Epirus), maybe something like "Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John would eventually still ..." (a bit problematic in the same way, but maybe you see what I mean). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How's this look? Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John eventually assigned Constantine to the Morea as a despot in 1427 after the war against Epirus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 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)

I can't remember but it's probably the author of the source (Nicol) rationalizing John's actions, I don't think we know explicitly why John did anything. Maybe this could be changed to something like "... now happy to rule in the Morea, but the peninsula was repeatedly threatened throughout the 1420s" or something to that effect? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Switched out "now happy" with "content" in this edit.

Suggestion: That's one option. Alternatively, we could introduce the author of the source, Donald (?) Nicol, to attribute his thoughts. Something like: Though Theodore was content to rule in the Morea, historian Donald Nicol believes that the support was helpful, as the peninsula was repeatedly threatened by a foreign empire throughout the 1420s. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me too. "Foreign empire" wouldn't really be correct as the Morea was threatened by several enemies (Epirus, Venice, the Ottomans), out of which only one (Ottomans) are typically considered an empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, what about replacing "foreign empire" with "external forces"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 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)

This bit might be completely unnecessary (or should specify better) but the big thing that got in the way was the impending Ottoman attack. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: In that case, what about Due to an impending Ottoman attack, Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia, if there were no other major significant reasons for Sphrantzes not returning to Georgia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The impending Ottoman attack is the one that resulted in the city's fall so I'm thinking that if it is explicitly indicated there must be some way of getting around introducing it in an overly detailed way before it really becomes relevant in the text (which is a lot later). I'm not aware of what any other reasons would be, the source indicated the impending battle. Sphrantzes was set to return to Georgia in the spring of 1452, Mehmed II began the construction of his European-side castle to be used for the attack in the spring of 1452. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the reason was the fear of an impending Ottoman attack, how about Due to mounting tensions with the Ottomans, Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 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)

The prophecy seems to refer to a lunar eclipse/blood moon (after a quick round of googling), not just a normal wane (though I remember the source used here used "wane"). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

From my little research jaunt into that particular lunar eclipse, it appears that it was a partial lunar eclipse, which would make it appear as if part of the moon was missing. This excerpt from what the site claims to be the diary of Nicolo Barbaro claims:

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.

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)

 Not done. I'll leave this for the requester for interest.

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: Thanks for the replies! Many of the questions I had have been addressed and struck out. Others have further inquiries or suggestions. I also happened to forget one comment I marked down in my preliminary pass: I've marked that one with a . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Another round of replies 👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: More replies and we're whittling these down 👍. I think you might find the source I found interesting as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 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)

@Tenryuu: Sorry for not replying yesterday, I'm vacationing and internet access has been a bit sporadic. I'll read through this article once I'm back home in a few days! Thank you again for taking the time to go through this :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ConstantinoXI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

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)

Lead too long

Why is the lead so long? A lot of background stuff, needs cleanup. Beshogur (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

Giannisistorikos (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have

Length: suggested “cuts”

Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:

• The Amendments sections are exceedingly long as well as redundant, considering that List of amendments to the United States Constitution covers the same ground. This main article also links with separate articles on each of the Constitution’s amendments.
• Judicial Review is another long section that has a main article, Judicial review in the United States.

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)

What does this page have to do with the United States Constitution? Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)