Talk:Constantine VII

Mother?
This article talks about his brothers mother, but who was Constanine's mother? Common Man 19:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * His mother was Zoe Karvounopsina, I've added that now. Adam Bishop 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now realize that the picture caption had that information, already. Moreover, the next paragraph says "Constantine was also born in this room, although his mother Zoe ... " - somehow I was just confused by the word "also". Sorry about that.Common Man 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

About John Tzimiskes' nationality
John's wiki page does not state that he was Armenian. The emperor's family was Armenian in origin, as was his nickname, which is what the article explains, but there's no evidence that he himself was Armenian. John was born and raised in Cappadocia, a region with a strong Roman majority, as a member of a long since Romanized family, the Kourkouades; in fact he was a nephew of Nikephoros Phokas himself. John strongly identified as Roman, which in the period in question required speaking Greek since birth, by some standards even having a parent who spoke Greek from birth (see Kaldellis's "Hellenism in Byzantium"), but the most telling evidence of his Roman origin is the absence, in a society which still considered Armenians violence-prone "semi-barbarians", of the use of his supposed Armenian birth in the propaganda of his enemies, and Tzimiskes' enemies produced a lot of propaganda. Additionally, the people of Constantinople, in the past willing to riot at the prospect of a Romanized emperor (see Kaldellis's "The Byzantine Republic"), went along perfectly peacefully with John's coup, suggesting that they saw him as one of their own. It is possible, especially considering his birthplace, that the emperor was raised bilingual or learned Armenian as a second language later on, but, even if he did, it wasn't part of his identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandukeofalecon (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Really?
 * John H. Rosser. Historical Dictionary of Byzantium. — Second Edition.— Scarecrow Press, 2011. — p. 56.:"Beginning in the sixth century, Armenians emigrated to Byzantium in great numbers, becoming the most assimilated of any ethnic group, while, at the same time, maintaining their distinct literature, religion, and art. Thousands of Armenian soldiers served in imperial forces, and a number of important military leaders and civil administrators were Armenian, including emperors Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I Lekapenos, and John I Tzimiskes."
 * And the article, John I Tzimiskes, states, "John I Tzimiskes was born into the Kourkouas clan, a family of Armenian origin."
 * John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057: Translation and Notes, John Wortley, page 247, "John, surnamed Tzimiskes, a word of Armenian origin, refering to his small stature, was of the Kourkouas famiy which had Armenian blood in it."
 * The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia During the Crusades, Jacob G. Ghazarian, page 41, "The successor of Nicephorus II Phocas as emperoor of Byzantium(963-969) was the Armenian John I Tzimiskes (969-976)..."
 * The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, page 608;"and, in 969 AD, the Emperor John Tzimiskes (himself an Armenian) transplanted a further body of them to Philipopolis."
 * The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance, Christopher MacEvitt, page 36, "In 975, John Tzimiskes, yet another general and emperor of Armenian descent, led his armies to capture Baalbek, Beirut, and Byblos in what is now Lebanon..."
 * The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Edward Luttwak, page 342, "John Tzimiskes, who killed and succeeded Nikephorus Phokas and died in 976, was of Armenian origin..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ":And the article, John I Tzimiskes, states, "John I Tzimiskes was born into the Kourkouas clan, a family of Armenian origin." "
 * "John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057: Translation and Notes, John Wortley, page 247, "John, surnamed Tzimiskes, a word of Armenian origin, refering to his small stature, was of the Kourkouas famiy which had Armenian blood in it." "
 * " The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance, Christopher MacEvitt, page 36, "In 975, John Tzimiskes, yet another general and emperor of Armenian descent, led his armies to capture Baalbek, Beirut, and Byblos in what is now Lebanon..." "


 * Yes, John's family was of Armenian origin, and I already noted this, but this is very different from him being an Armenian. Even the phrasing used in the quotes, that his family was of Armenian origin or that it had Armenian "blood" in it, pretty clearly implies that its members were no longer actually Armenian.


 * "Beginning in the sixth century, Armenians emigrated to Byzantium in great numbers, becoming the most assimilated of any ethnic group, while, at the same time, maintaining their distinct literature, religion, and art. Thousands of Armenian soldiers served in imperial forces, and a number of important military leaders and civil administrators were Armenian, including emperors Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I Lekapenos, and John I Tzimiskes."


 * This quote illustrates just how loose the definition of "Armenian" can be in secondary sources. Basil I was a Roman farmer born and raised in Thrace whose first language was Greek. His mother was likely Roman and his father may or may not have been from Armenia, but calling Basil himself an Armenian is ridiculous. Maybe in the modern day he could have been called "ethnically Armenian", but the concept of ethnicity as we know it didn't exist in the 9th century.


 * "The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia During the Crusades, Jacob G. Ghazarian, page 41, "The successor of Nicephorus II Phocas as emperoor of Byzantium(963-969) was the Armenian John I Tzimiskes (969-976)..." "
 * "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, page 608;"and, in 969 AD, the Emperor John Tzimiskes (himself an Armenian) transplanted a further body of them to Philipopolis." "


 * I would like to know exactly what sources these authors, who don't specialize in Byzantine history mind you, cite to support these claims (and what their definition of "Armenian" is), because no account of John Tzimiskes' upbringing is extant except for the basic information that he hailed from the Armeniac theme (according to Leo the Deacon), which, despite the name, doesn't even border Armenia, and he's never mentioned as being Armenian in any Roman source at least, friendly, neutral, or hostile.


 * On the other hand, John was closely related to, and associated with, Nikephoros Phokas, who certainly wasn't Armenian, and a wealth of evidence exists that John spoke good Greek and was literate, even educated, identified as Roman, which in this period was generally exclusive with being an Armenian, and was thought by the Romans themselves to be one of their own. Leo the Deacon, for example, a contemporary, says of John: "The Mysians [Bulgarians] are said to have been defeated only by Constantine Kopronymos, and again by his grandson Constantine, the son of the augusta Irene, and now by the emperor John, who subdued the cities of the Mysians by force. No other Roman is recorded who prevailed against them in their own land." and also "And while the emperor was approaching them [the Rus'] at a deliberate pace, certain bold souls, spurred on by reckless courage, separated off from the Rus' army, set up an ambush, and then attacked some of the advance [Roman] scouts from their hiding place and killed them. When the emperor saw their bodies tossed alongside the path, he reined in his horse, and in anger at the death of fellow countrymen ordered that the perpetrators of this deed be tracked down."


 * Tzimiskes was the kind of man to say things like "For I think it is wrong, nay intolerable, for Roman generals to be led and to be dragged by the nose, hither and thither, like slaves, by a wretched eunuch from the wastes of Paphlagonia" to his friends, in this case Nikephoros Phokas before they fell out, and "Therefore pluck up your courage, and, remembering that you are Romans, who have overwhelmed all your enemies by force of arms in the past, follow as quickly as possible, displaying your valor by means of your deeds" to his soldiers (both from Leo the Deacon). John was raised in one of the "Great Roman" not "Armenian" themes, his favourite saint was the martyr Theodore, only really popular in the Greek speaking world, he considered Roman soldiers from Europe his fellow countrymen, and is never once insinuated by any contemporary writer to be a foreigner.


 * In conclusion, the evidence doesn't point towards John being Armenian in any meaningful way, especially as opposed to Roman, and the article will be edited to reflect this.


 * --Jeandukeofalecon (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, this is difficult. Tzimiskes is certainly a leading product of the Armenian element in Byzantium, and as Kansas Bear points out, he is frequently called "Armenian" in the sources, but Jeandukeofalecon is right in that this is an oversimplification that we should avoid. He was the grandson of Theophilos Kourkouas, whose family was in Byzantine service since the time of his grandfather; his mother was a sister of Nikephoros Phokas, and while the origin of the Phokades is unknown, by this time they were Hellenized (or "Romanized"); he was brought up thoroughly "Roman", and if he had a concept of himself as Armenian, it does not seem to have been expressed in any significant way. To give a somewhat extreme example, he belonged to a family that was in Byzantine service, and thoroughly assimilated into the Byzantine aristocracy, at least as long as the Trump family has been in the United States. Should we start calling Donald Trump a "German", then? Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF etc, and there is a considerable body of literature that names him "Armenian". However, while he definitely had Armenian blood, is that really relevant in any article rather than Tzimiskes' own, an article on his family, or when used as an example of the Armenian element in Byzantium? In the context that is being disputed here, it is pretty much useless. Constantine   ✍  13:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My response initially was to this comment by jeandukeofalecon;


 * "John's wiki page does not state that he was Armenian. The emperor's family was Armenian in origin, as was his nickname, which is what the article explains, but there's no evidence that he himself was Armenian."
 * Which is incorrect, John I Tzimiskes article does state Armenian descent. And in response to this comment;


 * "I would like to know exactly what sources these authors, who don't specialize in Byzantine history mind you, cite to support these claims (and what their definition of "Armenian" is).."
 * Actually John Wortley specializes in History and Culture of the Later Roman ("Byzantine") Empire to 1204.
 * In response to Constantine, no John's ethnicity does not need to be stated in an article besides his own. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Being of Armenian descent is completely different than being "Armenian", especially in a time period where the concept of "ethnicity" didn't exist as we know it (Though if you asked him, john would have proudly proclaimed himself a member of the Roman ethnos). My great grandmother was German, so does that make me German by extension? Would you describe me in a wiki article as "The German Jeandukeofalecon" based solely off of that information? No, of course you wouldn't, so why do you assume that Tzimiskes being of Armenian descent is a valid argument for describing him as "The Armenian John Tzimiskes"? I can assure you that he wouldn't appreciate the gesture, considering the attitude of most Romans towards the people of Armenia.


 * Regarding John Wortley, I agree with his statement that Tzimiskes had "Armenian blood", but such a statement simply isn't relevant to our discussion, and he wasn't the author I was commenting on. Those would be the authors of a 100 year old book on Ottoman history and a history of Armenian Cilicia, established a century after John's reign.


 * --Jeandukeofalecon (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The massive succession box...
Is Constantine's massive succession box justified? Yes he had a somewhat troubled reign in regards to co-regencies and status but does that justify "splitting" his reign into four parts (all of which begin on the same day as the previous part ended) and taking up a huge chunk of space? Wouldn't it make more sense to just list his reign as 15 May 908 – 9 November 959 or alternatively if you want to disregard the first part where he is junior emperor under his father, 6 June 913 – 9 November 959. Britannica just straight up says he was "Byzantine emperor from 913 to 959" (link). Infoboxes are supposed to summarize information (right?) and I don't think this one is easy to follow along at all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Date confusion
This article says he became sole emperor on 27 Jan 945, but both the Stephen Lekapenos and Constantine Lekapenos have that happening on the 26th. I just moved the listing from the January 27 article to the 26th, but it was cited to, so now I don't know which one is correct anymore. — howcheng  {chat} 19:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was 27 January, there is no doubt about it. This is the date given by the Theophanes Continuatus (Book VI) and John Skylitzes (s. 237).Tintero21 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)