Talk:Constantine V

Untitled

I liked that remark about Constantine V persecuting nuns and monks by forcing them to hold hands in the Hippodrome. I always was against holding hands in church. I never do it, especially if it's a guy next to me. Smartalec

Constantine V

One of the greatest emperors ever.A great general, and an innovative ruler.Crushed the caliphate and rescued europe from the arabs.Also crused the Bulgars and humiliated the Pope by saying "I am the king and the priest" when the pope didn't obey him. This article needs expansion.

Only did it in there bloodiest civil war when they couldn’t afford to send an army to the northern front, afterwards abbasids came and crushed byzantines and they started paying the jizyah bruh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FF0010 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Copronymous

Someone needs to find out and write up why history calls him Copronymous (Poop Name) Marty4286 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. "Iconophiles considered his death a divine punishment. They spread the rumour that he had defecated in his baptismal font as a baby, and began to refer to him as Kopronymos." Adam Bishop 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

-Theophanes uses the term "kopronymos". See "Annus Mundi 6211" for the entry, or pp. 91-92 in Turtledove's translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.122.236 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Worship?

I posit that the use of the phrase "image worship" in this article endorses the point of view of Iconoclasm and ought to be changed. The veneration of icons is not image worship, and is only refered to as such by its detractors. I will try and remember to check back in a while, and change this if there aren't legitimate objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "veneration" of images is the NPOV term - not in itself either iconodule or iconoclast - while calling it "worship" is specifically iconoclast. Changing text accordingly. Vilĉjo (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine V/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A have a number of over-arching concerns regarding this article, to the extent that I am not sure if it is ready for GAN. But let's see what we can do. Not e the comments below re words to watch and attribution. In many cases, not all specified below, terms (eg associate, palatine) or concepts (eg iconoclasm, circus factions) are introduced with no explanation; the article needs amending to be comprehensible to a lay reader. Also the order of the sections seems odd. There are three on military events, interrupted by two on iconoclasm and domestic policy. There are other issues, but these should be enough for now.

Artabasdos' episode is early in the reign and a civil war, the other military activities were later and against external foes - so chronology and context dictates their separation. I have changed the position of Iconoclasm and domestic rule sections I think it improves the flow. I have addressed the other problems.

• "Iconoclasm" should have a lower case i.

Done

• 48-manasses-chronicle.jpg, SoldiersGuardIgnatios.jpg and Persecution of monks from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes.jpg need USPD tags.

Deleted

• "In August 720 he was associated on the throne" I don't think that the average reader will understand what this means.

Added an explanation of Byzantine political theory

• "Constantine V succeeded his father as sole emperor on 18 June 741." A note here of what had happened to his father would be helpful.

Done

• Link "dung" at first mention.

Dung is a common English word and would be overlinking to link it

• "actively campaigning beyond those borders, both East and West" Why do "East and West" have initial capitals? (Also elsewhere in the article.)

Done

• "dispassionate" Could you rephrase re words to watch.

Done

• "He achieved this by training for serious warfare what had previously been, largely ornamental, palatine parade units" I think that the first comma needs to go; and I don't think that an average reader will understand what "palatine" means.

Wording changed

• "Constantine left a very full treasury" Delete "very"; it was either full or it wasn't.

Reworded

• "He associated only his eldest son, Leo, with the throne as co-emperor" Again, "associated" will not be understood by most readers.

Covered in the intro.

• "With the impetus of having fathered numerous offspring" This doesn't make sense; what "impetus" does fathering offspring provide?

If you are the ruler of a state obsessed with etiquette and rank, and have a number of sons, then giving them gradations of rank becomes important. If you have only one son the problem does not arise, or is at least merely theoretical. Had he made them all co-emperors then the succession to become the ruling basileus autokrator might be contested.

• Just what iconoclasm was/is needs introducing before you move on to "Constantine's position on Iconoclasm was clear …" etc

Done

• Sources. Give original publication date, where applicable.

Don't follow you here

• Give ISBNs or OCLCs for all sources.

Done

• "Christopher, Caesar" etc. A reader is likely to understand these to be giving "Caesar" as the first name.

It is linked to Caesar (title) page

• "However, it refused to follow in all of Constantine's views, which were against the veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus and the saints." I think that you mean 'which it considered to be against ...' There are a lot of instances where you state as fact what is an opinion, either of a contemporary or of a modern historian.

Phrasing changed - but you cannot second guess a secondary source, as that would be OR, unless another secondary source offers an alternative opinion.

• "Constantine specifically targeted the monks, pairing them off" This reads as if he paired the monks off (with each other).

Wording changed

• "The repressions against the monks" repression is singular.

Wording changed

• "An iconodule abbot, Stephen Neos, was brutally lynched by a mob" Delete "brutally"; can one be non-brutally lynched? Could you go through the article looking for and removing other examples of words to watch. ("important", "long" etc)

Useful adjectives, though

• "These campaigns failed to secure any concrete gains" The previous sentence states that he captured two cities; are these not "concrete gains"?

No he made absolutely no effort to retain them, his campaign was essentially a raid on a very large scale.

• "raided as far as the Anastasian Wall" Which is what, and where? Ie, why is it significant?

Addressed

• " where six monarchs lost their crowns" In what period?

During Constantine's campaigns - I think the context was clear enough, but I have reinforced it

• "Constantine was persuaded to reveal to the Bulgarian ruler Telerig the identities of his agents in Bulgaria" How and/or why?

Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally:

• Where sources are translated, please give the translator's name.

Done

• "In August 720 he was associated on the throne by his father" is contradicted by my copy of Ostrogorsky. In fact, of your "Early life" section, I can only find the second sentence in my copy. (Which admittedly is an earlier edition.)

It's in Finlay - have added Finlay as a citation

• Halden states that the tagmata "was established", rather than developed by better training for existing units. He also stresses the role of mercenaries, which you don't. Most of what Halden has to say about Byzantine tactics does not make it into this article. I am not necessarily concerned by this, but I would like to hear your reasoning.

Most of the units making up the tagmata - e.g. Scholae - already existed. Created or modified - both really, he created an effective though small central army, but he used previously decorative palace regiments in order to do so. Haldon is playing rather fast and loose with the concept of 'mercenary'. He is really contrasting the themata troops to both the central Imperial Tagmata and the later provincial tagmata (important in the 11th century). If a soldier who is paid directly by his government (rather than being a soldier-farmer militiaman) is a 'mercenary' then all professional soldiers throughout history are and were mercenaries. Treadgold (1995) concludes that thematic soldiers must have been drafted into the scholae etc to expand their numbers into a militarily useful corps - to produce the tagmata.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Haven't the time now - just immediately fail please. Urselius (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine V/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• 48-manasses-chronicle.jpg needs a USPD tag.
• SoldiersGuardIgnatios.jpg needs a USPD tag.

Done

• Image caption: "Manasses Chronicle - 14th century manuscript" The hyphen should be a spaced en dash.

Don't know what that means - I have added hyphen to 14th-century and replaced previous hyphen with a comma

Thanks. Now MoS compliant.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor copy edits which you will want to check.

I am fairly sure that capitalisation of titles should be in the form 'King Richard' or 'the king'. Capitalisation is only where the title is directly associated with a proper noun. Will amend. I see that Wikipedia does not agree with this view - so I have reverted. It seems to be a grey area.

It seems clear to me. Which part seems grey?

Whether the use of a title in place of a proper noun requires capitalisation. "The Archdeacon must see this", or "The archdeacon must see this".

• It depends on whether the noun refers to a single, identifiable individual. So: "In the 14th century the king opened parliament"; "In June 1344 the King opened parliament".

• "the son and successor of Emperor Leo III and Maria" → '... and his wife, Maria.'

Done

• "Artabasdos struck against Constantine, when their respective" Delete the comma.

Done

• "was accepted and crowned emperor" I am not sure what "accepted" adds. (Or even means.)

Replaced with 'acclaimed'

• In the chronology "with Constantine V as co-emperor, 720–751" Should that be '720–741'?

Yes, the box was created by Cplakadis (Constantine), I think, I don't know how to access it for editing

Constantine has now amended it.

• "writing no less than thirteen treatises" seems MOS:VAGUE. Can I suggest 'writing thirteen treatises'.

Have changed wording

• "sending his own representatives to argue his case" Suggest deleting "own".

Deleted "his own"

• "(culminating in 766)" begs a question. How or in what way did it culminate?

Deleted

• "in which the mob took active delight" Again seems MOS:VAGUE. Can I suggest deleting "active".

I would defend 'active' as we know that Byzantine mobs were very physical, hence the Modern Greek 'moutza' gesture, deriving from the mob smearing their victims with unpleasant matter, and the evidence of the casual torture of Andronikos I as he was paraded through Constantinople.

Hmm. OK.

• "Iconoclasm was not purely an imperial heresy" Suggest "heresy" → 'policy'.

It wasn't a definite 'heresy' at the time, but, although it had a political dimension, is was at heart religious - I would prefer 'religious conviction'

OK.

• "may have been motivated by a desire to retain the approval of the people" 'and the army'?

Done

• "largely ornamental guard units" Suggest "ornamental" → 'ceremonial'.

Done

• "This force [singular] was designed to form the core of field armies [plural]" This is unclear to me.

Well, if the emperor was campaigning in the east he would probably have a field army consisting of the tagmata plus mainly the Armeniac and Anatolic thematic troops, if campaigning in the Balkans then the army would probably consist of the tagmata plus mostly the Thracian, Opsikian, Bukkelarian and Thrakesian thematic troops. Two different field armies, both with a core of the tagmata.

OK, understood.

• "Constantine constructed a number of notable buildings in the Great Palace of Constantinople including the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos and the porphyra." This implies that theporphyra was one of the notable buildings, which it wasn't. Could you rephrase.

I would defend the importance/notability of the porphyra. It wasn't a large building but its political importance in guaranteeing the legitimacy of imperial children was immense. The Stone of Scone is a small and nondescript piece of rock, nowhere near the size of a megalith, but it has huge notability.

Agreed. It definitely needs including. My question is: was the porphyra a building or a room? The current text suggests that it was a building; I had understood that it was a room - I may well be wrong.

It seems to have been both, see: [1]. According to Harris it was a building consisting of one room. As the Great Palace, like the Topkapi, was a essentially collection of pavilions set on terraces this makes sense.

News to me, but fair enough; and I am now better informed.

• "It was employed for the birth of the children" I know what you mean, but it seems a little clumsy. Can you think of a more informative way of phrasing this?

The 'accouchement of pregnant empresses' would be better and more accurate, but less understandable - have changed the wording, though it is now more 'wordy'

True. I am happy to consider alternatives, but it currently seems to be a good compromise between conciseness and explanation.

• "but gave his younger sons the titles of caesar and nobelissimos" Was this the case? Or do you mean 'but gave his younger sons the titles of either caesar or nobelissimos'?

Changed

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Again I have made a couple of copy edits. Again, flag up anything you are not happy with.

• "invaded Syria and captured Germanikeia (modern Marash, his father's birthplace), and recaptured Cyprus" Umm. How about '; the island of Cyprus was also recaptured.'?

Done, sort of

• "He retired to Bythinia to avoid the disease" "He" → 'Constantine'.

Done

• After first mention, could you change mentions of "Constantine V' to 'Constantine'.

Done, except at the start of the 'Assement' section, where it seems appropriate.

Good point.

• "An objective analysis" Calling an analysis "objective" seems PoV to me. Can you source the use of the word?

I have amended it - but it is more wordy again

True. Ho hum. I think that it needs to be. Or something along the lines of 'Modern analyses of Constantine's life indicate that ... ' perhaps?

I have attempted another rewording, avoiding the word 'analysis', it might work

Also, just checking, given the three sources, would it be more accurate to say 'analyses' rather than

Looks like a fine, solid piece of work to me. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I unearthed more additional material than I thought was out there.

It is certainly a more impressive piece of work now than it was when you first nominated it. Nearly there.

• When an article is contained within a book or journal, the name of the article should be within quote marks " ", not in italics; eg see Barnard, Constas, etc.

Done

• 13 figure ISBNs should be consistent. Ie, either always put a hyphen after the first 978, or never do.

Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to pass this, but could you sort out the ISBN for Freely and Cakmak, which is inconsistent with your other 10 figure ISBNs. Thanks.

Changed this and the Fine ISBN which was also in an alternate format

Well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is comprehensive, neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated appropriately. Passing. Great work!

Thanks a lot, my horizons were limited by the cursory treatment in Ostrogorsky and other generalist books, but there was wealth of information out there in more specialist publications, which surprised me considerably. Urselius (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Constantine is not a writer !!

Hi there The lead says below Constantine v that he’s a writer This is a fat mistake right? Whatsupkarren (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the lead says that he was vilified by iconodule writers. However, in the text it does say that he wrote 13 theological treatises, so was a writer as well as being an emperor. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Declaration

As i did read the sources put in the article, i strangely didn’t find anything approving in the claim put After reading the contemporary sources, still couldn’t find anything about it, and it didn’t mention that an army marched at that year. I would politely ask to remove this claim, since no sources approves in it. FF0010 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• "As i did read the sources put in the article..."

Really?

• "Leo III and the Isaurian dynasty (717-802)", Charles Diehl,The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol 4: The eastern Roman empire, ed. J.B. Bury, Cambridge University Press; "Most certainly Constantine V was , even more than his father , autocratic , violent , passionate , harsh , and often terrifying . ... Such was his military reputation that in 757 the Arabs retreated at the bare rumour of his approach".

As cited in the article;

• Bury, J.B. (1923) The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4: The Eastern Roman Empire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ISBN 9781456581633 --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)