Talk:Constantine the Great/Archive 2

Popular Myths about the Council of Nicea Re: Constantine's role
Unfortunately, due to many cultural influences (and outdated sources), many continue to promote the following ideas. Some of them appeared in this article, but I thought I'd mention some others too just to be more thorough:

- That Constantine "influenced" the theology of the Council of Nicea towards a predetermined conclusion. - That Constantine "forced" people to reject Arianism as a result of the Council's ruling in 325, or that Arianism was suppressed during his reign. - One of two extremes... that Constantine was either a brilliant theologian OR that he was a lifelong pagan (both put undue emphasis on his role in "crafting" the council's theology and promote cynicism towards what happened later and his personal stake in it) - That Constantine slaughtered those who rejected the Council's decisions. - That "the Trinity Theory" (never heard this terminology used in the scholarly literature) was created or invented by Constantine or the Council of Nicea (and this was the opposite position to Arianism; Arianism at that time dealt with whether the Word who was Incarnate in Jesus Christ was a created God or whether he was eternally God with the Father; hence the argument over "similar substance" or "the same substance"). - That the Council of Nicea rejected "rival scriptures" or debated the canon of the Christian Bible at all - That the Council "burned rival scriptures" that didn't agree with their beliefs - That the Council invented the doctrine of the deity of Christ or that this was determined by a "close vote" - That the Council was a co-opting of pagan beliefs and customs into Christianity at Constantine's behest for political gain - That Constantine took any actions to "re-write" or "edit" the Bible to conform to either the Council's conclusions or to his personal theological beliefs or goals - That Constantine persecuted or had Arius killed (in actual fact, it was Athanasius, Arius' most vocal opponent, who could be said to have been more persecuted. When Arius died of disease, some interpreted it as God's punishment for his stubborn heresy, but this is a far cry from his being assassinated by Imperial order). - That Constantine was "the first pope" (this is an odd one, but I thought I'd put it here because I hear it so often)

In actual fact, it seems that Arianism continued to be very popular (in some places outnumbered the "Athanasian" style of Christianity we're used to viewing as the "winner" of the council) for some time after Constantine's death. Later forms of Arianism varied in their beliefs from those proposed at first by Arius himself, so that's also important to keep in mind.

Constantine's desire being a reaching of consensus in his newly adopted faith is not controversial, but the argument that he came in with a predetermined goal in mind (in favor of the theology of Athanasius, which is the normal way it is expressed not "Trinity Theory") and forced that conclusion because it was politically beneficial, is simply not well supported in mainstream scholarship.

Some will surely want to argue with my on these points of "popular wisdom" about Constantine, Christian theology, and the Council of Nicea, so I would challenge such people to read the Canons of the Council of Nicea and consult modern scholarly biographies of Constantine in order to validate claims such as these before passing them along. I don't consider the man either a pure villain or a marble saint, but in fact some do, and that has unfortunately lead to some rather sloppy comments about him in places like this which I think we should avoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.206.110 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which orator
Who was the orator mentioned giving the speech in Gaul on 25 July 310. Jarwulf (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange sentence
Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). I am completely confused as to what this sentence is trying to say. Did the prohibition prohibit celebrating Easter on that day? If that is the case, then it should read: ...enforced the First Council's prohibition of celebrating Easter.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.158.187 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of somebody else
The article has really great images of Diocletian and Maxentius. Why? They would be great in their articles but don't belong here. Yes, the article mentions them, but the images detract from Constantine. They should be deleted. Student7 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't the style followed in other articles. Individuals with a strong and relevant impact on a person's life often have their photographs/portraits/statuary/coinage featured in that person's biography. In real life, and on Wikipedia: Check out Pericles, where Aspasia, Pericles' companion, gets pride of place; Isaac Brock, where Governor General Sir George Prevost, "whose approach to the war conflicted with Brock's", makes an appearance; or Honoré de Balzac, where Laure Junot gives the reader a wary smile. Honestly, this is standard. How would the reader benefit from watching a parade of Constantine's nobly staring down on him? Much better, I think, to see what his longtime enemies, companions, friends, lovers, and influences looked like. I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so, given the examples I've pulled up (and I could doubtless find hundreds more, from the selections provided by the heavily vetted FA listings alone). I don't think they detract from this article, or that they should be removed (much less deleted!). Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Detracts from article's integrity. Where are article boundaries if we allow pictures of other people? The issue here is boundaries. Once you run over them, there are no limits. If pictures, why not text having nothing to do with Constantine? I agree if the image showed Constantine as well, it could be included. That is our criteria for text. Why not the same for pictures.


 * As far as finding them elsewhere, I suppose I will have to go there and try to straighten them out too. I really don't like being made responsible for everyone else's errors. I'm watching 950 articles already, which is about as many as I can handle. Student7 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not an error! They put it there on purpose! And they passed WP:FAC, where almost any objection will be considered and rectified. And no one cared about the images.Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well maybe seeing who subjects picked out is somehow useful. I'll give Pericles Aphasia. And no wonder Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn complained about Balzac!


 * Let me counter by saying that the article on Obama's mother does not have a picture of Obama without her also, though one of the candidate, alone, might add to the article and is certainly available. And it might help promote his candidacy. But it's not there. Editors were thinking very clearly when they published it. Student7 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How could you give Pericles his Aphasia and refuse Constantine his Maxentius? Maxentius was the pivotal figure in Constantine's career. Surely the reader wants an image in mind when their visualizing them facing off across the Tiber. As to BHO: I'm sure the BHO dudes would love to have a picture of his mother. The problem is, there's no fair-use image (check out Ann Dunham: There's nothing there! When Time got her on the cover they must have paid for it. They have an image of the guy's dad, apparently, which finds its way into the article on his early life. I imagine they couldn't fit it into the main article because the long-ass infobox rolls all over the relevant section. Who'd want a picture of the deadbeat anyways; isn't one of his talking points how he was raised by a "struggling single mother" or somesuch?). Speaking of Presidential candidates, John McCain's dad and granddad get a premiere position over at Early life and military career of John McCain. I have no idea how to respond to "Detracts from article's integrity". As to "boundaries", there are boundaries: (1) Article space; (2) How involved the subject is in the article text; (3) Copyright policy; (4) How good the image is. What you appear to be concerned about is (2), a concern expressed in the relevant guideline, Images in the following sentences: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text....Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." I think Maxentius' image, placed near a healthy description of the geopolitical intrigue caused by Maxentius and manipulated by Constantine, is both "near relevant text" and "significantly relative to the article's topic [sic]". Diocletian gets to hang out in the article beside the extracts of the text dealing with Constantine's role in Diocletian's government and Diocletian's persecutions. (Relevant!) As to "Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn": I don't get the reference. -_- Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Eulalie was much better looking than the Duchess, who, after all might not have her own article with a picture, as, admittedly, Aspasia does. But Constantine didn't select Maxentius as an opponent based on his looks. At least I don't think he did...12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And another thing! Where does one quit when adding collateral images to an article that don't include the subject. There are dozens of people mentioned in the article. Do we want images of all? Fortunately, we are limited here by what survived, so we won't be arguing too long at worst. Take an extreme example of Bill Clinton. We have plenty of images of other people (without Clinton in them). The article could be loaded down with nothing but heads of state! Student7 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We quit when we run out of space! I've recently been reading Bob Woodward's The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House, and it has tons of pictures of other dudes who just hang around giving out treasury reports or charming up POTUS. I think that kind of material is really helpful! I wouldn't know how to feel about Robert Reich or Lloyd Bentsen or Leon Panetta if I didn't know how the guys looked. (Heads of state would be dull, though. What did WJC ever do on the world stage, anyways? I'd put Mao in with Nixon, and Stalin+Churchill in with FDR, but with WJC there probably isn't any individual international relationship notable enough for inclusion. Domestic figures are where it's at! Maybe even put in Ken and Newt!) It's important to remember that these transcendental figures don't exist in a vacuum; they have power only in relation to their network of friends, partners, and enemies. Reminding the reader of the milieu in which these individuals lived is more important than giving them a broad taste-test of the hundreds of imperial portraits out there. Take Elizabeth I of England, for example. The author has the option to surround the reader with images of Lizzy, but he doesn't: he gives us Queen Mary I, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, François, Duke of Anjou, Mary, Queen of Scots, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, and James I of England. And when he does give us images of Liz, he takes them from pivotal moments in her life: childhood, coronation, after the victory over the Armada, and in old age. We don't have those choices here (or at least I haven't mined the banks to find them); all we could provide are a drab selection of generic iconography. Bo-ring. To address the "slippery slope" part of your argument, I believe these choices should be subjected to guideline-based judgment (on relevance and importance to the subject) on a case-by-case basis. And, to repeat, I think the case for inclusion is quite strong here: Maxentius and Diocletian were pivotal figures in Constantine's life). Outlawing all non-subject images seems something of an extreme solution to the problem. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that they should make SURE that they are putting correct information up! I wasn't allowed to use wikipedia in my writing classes because anyone can write correct OR incorrect information about the person. I think that this is wrong. Only historians should be able to write about this stuff, and ONLY Godly historians who believe in Jesus so the information is correct! No evolution!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.26.117 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the pictures are appropriately attributed to be of Constantine the Great, there is a lot of dissimilarity of the images. For example, some images show a normal chin, another a dimpled chin, another a double chin. Sometimes bearded but mostly not. Hairstyles change, etc. Coins minted of the time is probably the most accurate representation, but I'm no historical expert. I just see a lot of inconsistency here. This is ok. but the depictions need to be put in some sort of context.--97.95.34.149 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine or Roman emporer?
What makes me laugh is how many people refuse to say the Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire were the same thing. The separate article on the Byzantine Empire says it was founded by Constantine, so therefore by moving the capital it become a new, different empire? Isn't that like saying America becomes a different country because it moved its capital a few times? I know, Byzantine is the scholarly and common term, but sometimes even reliable sources are influenced by inaccurate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.160.83 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'Byzantine empire' is an epithet of later invention. The inhabitants of the Eastern empire considered themselves Romans and referred to themselves as such. Since the epithet has since become an icon, scholars have accepted it as such, even though, strictly speaking, no 'Byzantine empire' ever existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.217.52 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Constantine's Danubian campaigns
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I cannot find mention of Constantine's large scale campaigns on the Danube frontier both before and after the bellum Cibalense against Licinius. As I remember Constantine took the style Gothicus Maximus and his trans-Danubian forays inflicted considerable defeats on the Goths and Sarmatians and led to panegyricists hailing him as a reconqueror of Dacia and a 'new Trajan.'

Any account seeking to be encyclopaedic should include these episodes.Urselius (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing word?
New to this, I noticed a typo under "Legacy"

"Grégoire became a strong of the authenticity of Eusebius' writings, and postulated a pseudo-Eusebius to assume responsibility for the vision and conversion narratives of Eusebius' Vita Constantini.[230]"

gregoire became a strong (skeptic, critic???), something got dropped in the writing but not sure what the word was.


 * Oops. It's probably my fault. "Skeptic" works, so I'll put it in. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather confusing sentence
The article contains the following:

"Constantine's army made its appearance, some of its soldiers bore unusual markings on their shields: instead of the traditional pagan standards, a new sign, the labarum, was mounted."

Are we talking about 'shield blazons' or standards here? It is not very clear.

The labarum was a standard: a vexillum with the spear point replaced by a Chi-Rho in gold and jewels. It is referenced in Constantine's later campaigns against Licinius but there are no direct references to its use in the campaign against Maxentius.

The labarum was a standard, the Chi-Rho was, and is, a symbol. The labarum incorporated a Chi-Rho, but a Chi-Rho is not a labarum, the two terms are not interchangable.

I would suggest that "Constantine's army made its appearance and, according to Lactantius, some of its soldiers bore unusual markings on their shields in the form of the Christogram or Chi-Rho." or something like this be substituted.Urselius (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am traveling at the moment, and am thus without books. This business was one of the knottier parts of Constantinian scholarship, if I recall correctly, so I wouldn't be surprised if I messed it up. I would check Barnes, Digeser, Jones and Odahl before tinkering with the construction too much. Do you have any good books with you? I'd love to see what they say. The shield blazons/standards thing is fixed by substituting a comma for the colon, and putting in a handsome "and". There! Two items, rather than one: the Lactantian shield-markings, which look like ankhs, and the Eusebian standard-thingies, which are labarums. I'm dubious on the statement that "there are no direct references to its use in the campaign against Maxentius". While that might be true, a good number (probably a healthy consensus) of the sources I've read put it right there, immediately before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. And the article puts a word of caution in, too: "...Eusebius is vague about when and where this event took place...[154]". Poor Eusebius! So confused and confusing. I'll be settled in and with my books within four/five days. Can we adjourn until then? Or can you give me a source-dump so that we can work out a new sentence? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The labarum, as described by Eusebius, was a very elaborate object. It was a standard with the Chi-Rho made of precious metal encrusted with jewels, and a cloth of gold drapery with images of Constantine and two of his sons embroidered on it. Not something that could be produced at short notice, unlike the daubing of the Chi-Rho on the shields of the soldiery which could have been accomplished within a few days. Logic would favour the shield blazons being achievable between Constantne's vision and the battle, but a large object requiring the fabrication of jewellers and embroiderers would not be a thing an army on campaign could reasonably accomplish in a short time-frame.Urselius (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a book with me now, and though it is only a single book, I'd like to think it's the best of the bunch: Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). Barnes, perhaps unsurprisingly for a man who takes both the Emperor and the Bishop as his subjects, prefers Eusebius' account of the thing: "Constantine then [after the "in this conquer" vision] too a public and significant step. He replaced the pagan standards of his troops with a new Christian sign which either bore or soon acquired a name which reflects its origin: the labarum&mdash;a Gallic word, as befitted the largely Gallic and German army of 312." (p. 43) Now, Urselius, if the best work on the subject accepts the Eusebian/labarum account, I don't think we should exclude it altogether.
 * I think it's best if we include them both, and avoid spending too much time discussing the faults of either one (that should be dealt with in a subarticle). That's how Averil Cameron, in her chapter on Constantine in the Cambridge Ancient History, handles it. (And she would know if there was anything that necessarily invalidated Eusebius' account, since she edited and translated the new edition of the Vita Constantini for Oxford University Press. Which, now that I mention it, would be a useful book to get ones' hands on.) "...Eusebius locates his vision of a cross in the sky, told for the first time in the Vit. Const. (1.28) as an addition to the earlier narrative in Hist. Eccl. IX, at some point on the southward march, whereas Lactantius' quite different account of Constantine's dream in DMP 44 is located on the eve of the battle against Maxentius. The two accounts differ in detail as well as in location and chronology; in Lactantius, Constantine is told in a dream to paint what seems to be the chi-rho on the shields of his soldiers, whereas in Eusebius' account, written many years later, he sees a cross of light in the sky with the words 'By this conquer', followed by a dream in which Christ himself appears to him in order to reinforce the message." (p. 92) [Addendum: I, uh, don't remember seeing the "requiring the fabrication of jewellers and embroiderers" argument before. I mean, obviously the later labarum took on the jewels, gold drapery, etc., but couldn't a primitive of wood or metal be cooked up on short notice? It's not like these liturgical/symbolic/artisanal developments emerge from the mists of time fully-formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus.] Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The labarum is shown on coins of Constantine, but only ones minted long after the war against Maxentius. Also Constantine is shown as a companion of the god Sol on coins as late as 313. The labarum is prominent in the battles of the second campaign against Licinius. The descriptions of the battles of Adrianople and Chrysopolis mention only one such standard and its talismanic properties, though other sources imply that labara were issued to many units in the Roman army.


 * The situation is far from clear, but there are two things which, I think, would make me hedge any mention of the labarum in the Maxentian campaign with serious caveats: first that the wording of Eusebius gives no real clue as to the time frame between Constantine's vision and the constuction of the labarum, and second that the Arch of Constantine, a piece of propaganda created soon after Constantine's victory, does not show the labarum, though draco standards are prominent (this is only in regard to the Constantinian date friezes, ignoring the re-used Trajanic stuff).Urselius (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found a reference in Constantine the Great by John Holland Smith (1977), p. 104: "What little evidence exists suggests that in fact the labarum bearing the chi-rho symbol was not used before 317, when Crispus became Caesar..." I mention this just to show that my objections were grounded in the literature on the subject. :) Urselius (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More on this topic: Hardyplants (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the fact remains that the literature on the subject is equivocal. "It cannot be conclusively stated that the labarum, in some form, was not adopted by Constantine's army at the battle in 312." Rudolph H. Storch, "The "Eusebian Constantine"" Church History 40:2 (1971): 148. The particular form of the labarum as described by Eusebius is impossible, yes, but that's explainable easily enough: "The labarum, as described in the Vita (I, 31), cannot be accurate for 312 A.D. but Eusebius may have been describing it as he knew it later or the detailed description could have been added by a later redactor." (Ibid.) Where there is serious disagreement in the literature, we can't be partisans of one side or another. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, what I am arguing for is an increase in the use of equivocal language in the text of the article, rather than the reverse.


 * The whole subject is hedged by doubts. Closer reading of Eusebius has shown me that the whole dream/vision and construction of the labarum was placed before Constantine ever set out against Maxentius. However, Lactantius has the vision happening when the campaign was in full swing. A definite discrepancy.  Also the labarum that Eusebius describes has images of Constantine and two of his sons on it. Constantine had more than two sons but only two were raised to the rank of caesar in the period before the second war against Licinius when the labarum becomes prominent in descriptions. Crispus and Constantine the Younger were raised in 317, so the labarum described by Eusebius is unlikely to have dated from earlier than that year. Furthermore Eusebius describes the labarum both as a singular object personal to Constantine, and also as a form of standard copied and distributed to many military units under Constantine's command.


 * I would be happier if more cautious language were used in the text, ideally bald statements such as "strange symbols were seen on the shields" should be toned down by adding "according to Lactantius" etc. Also any confusion between the labarum as a standard and the Chi-Rho Christogram as a symbol (indeed this differentiation is rigorously applied in the text of Eusebius's Life of Constantine) should be avoided. Urselius (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For those following this discussion here is copy of Eusebius's text, there is even some helpful commentary attached with it. Hardyplants (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, good. I think we're quite close to consensus on this issue. I'm going to paste the text here and ask "What would you have changed?"
 * "Maxentius organized his forces—still twice the size of Constantine's—in long lines facing the battle plain, with their backs to the river.[149] Constantine's army arrived at the field bearing unfamiliar symbols on either its standards or its soldiers' shields.[150] According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised 'to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields.'[151] Eusebius describes another version, where, while marching at midday, 'he saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, Conquer By This'.[152] During the following night, in a dream, Christ appeared with the heavenly sign (the labarum) and told him to make standards for his army in that form.[153] Although Eusebius is vague about when and where this event took place,[154] it enters his narrative before the war against Maxentius begins.[155] Eusebius describes the sign as Chi (Χ) traversed by Rho (Ρ), or ☧.[156] The Eusebian description of the vision has been explained as an example of the meteorological phenomenon known as the 'solar halo', which can produce similar effects.[157]"
 * The only positive statement that remains is "Constantine's army arrived at the field bearing unfamiliar symbols on either its standards or its soldiers' shields." The rest is all "According to Lactantius", "According to Eusebius". (It has been like this for a long time.) Do you have troubles with the sole positive statement, any of subsequent attributed statements, or anything else? Do suggest any rephrasing you have in mind. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, something like this:

"Maxentius organized his forces—still twice the size of Constantine's—in long lines facing the battle plain, with their backs to the river.[149] Sources indicate that Constantine's army arrived at the field bearing unfamiliar symbols on either its standards or its soldiers' shields.[150] According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields."[151] Eusebius describes another version, where, while marching at midday, "he saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, Conquer By This".[152] During the following night, in a dream, Christ appeared with the same heavenly sign and told him to make a standard, the labarum, for his army in that form.[153] Although Eusebius is vague about when and where this event took place,[154] it enters his narrative before the war against Maxentius begins.[155] Eusebius describes the sign as Chi (Χ) traversed by Rho (Ρ), or ☧.[156] The Eusebian description of the vision has been explained as an example of the meteorological phenomenon known as the "solar halo", which can produce similar effects. The earliest independent evidence for Constantine's use of the Chi-Rho symbol, and of the labarum standard which incorporated it, however, dates from a number of years after the Maxentian campaign."

would certainly work for me. The John Holland Smith citation could be attached to the "independent evidence" statement.Urselius (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "dates from 317" over "dates from a number of years after the Maxentian campaign", and "The earliest evidence outside Eusebius' Vita" over "independent". I think the first "sources indicate" is somewhat silly. It's the kind of thing you could put in front of every statement in the article; it's trivial. The rest is fine, although I'd like to know more about this "John Holland Smith". Who published the book? What offices and titles has Mr. Smith held? Has his book received strong reviews by major journals? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Urselius! Your sentence, slightly tweaked, is now in the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Smith book was reviewed on JSTOR - "readable ... no great contribution to scholarship ... reasonably reliable," a curate's egg, but I've seen worse reviews of useful books.

The "sources indicate" clause is a way of saying "We do not have a totally reliable account to support this but..." I think its use is apposite in this case, where we have two secondhand accounts of the adoption of the Chi-Rho symbol written some years after the events described which are mutually inconsistent on many important details. Eusebius, at least, also had something of an agenda in the Christian propoganda line, which makes his writing debatable, especially when there isn't a pagan view, such as Zosimus's, to balance it. We do have solid, largely numismatic, evidence for Constantine's adoption of the Chi-Rho and Labarum, but it is from years later than the Maxentian campaign.

In general the para is fine, but I'm still not happy with the Chi-Rho being called the labarum. Eusebius makes it clear that labarum is the name of the military standard, not the symbol it incorporated: "the STANDARD of the Cross, which the Romans now call the Labarum," Urselius (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Christ appeared with the same heavenly sign and told him to make a standard, the labarum, for his army in that form." that this is incorrect. "then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies." then later on he says "At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing." It seems that one very fancy standard was commissioned and constructed...it does not say how long it took to make it but Eusebius seems to indicate that there was only one and he even saw it many years later. Then he describes this one fancy standard, but then goes back to talking about the sign seen "These things were done shortly afterwards" ( the constructuion of the fancy stanard). "But at the time above specified" (right after the dream) "and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen...Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny." Hardyplants (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I skimmed over that. My apologies, again. The parenthetical (the labarum) has been moved from after "the heavenly sign" to after "a standard". I do not understand the point Hardyplants is trying to make. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats understandable. I was just hoping to point out that the vision was just the sign, and the fancy construction of the labarum was Constantine's idea and it most likely took a while to construct the ornate standard, while the sign would easily have been applied to shields or banners. I should have made in more clear that the words in quotes were taken from NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine. I was hopeing to point out the haphazard order Eusebius presents his informastion.Hardyplants (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent!

I've had a think about the singularity and plurality of the standard described by Eusebius and the coinage may give a clue:

Constantine's one and only Labarum (left):



And the different version of the standard given to army units - labara (right):

Urselius (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Eusebius (in the translation I'm reading: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.asp) repeatedly refers to a "cross" (Book I, Chapters XXXVIII - XXX). But when he goes on to describe the labarum in detail (Chapter XXXI), he identifies the cross-shaped part of the device as the spear and crosspiece. This was not an innovation of Constantine's: the form of the vexillum was established centuries earlier in the classical period, so surely Eusebius is stretching the point? Of course his devoutly Christian readers may have had no trouble accepting the similarity as divine providence. I'm inclined to regard it as faeces bovinae. 146.114.64.212 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence
The article states "Best known for being the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire." But this proclamation only addressed the rights of Christians. Constantine ushered in an era of persecution of Jews, limiting their freedoms and outlawing conversion to Judaism. Hardly a model of toleration! (141.202.248.52 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 15 January 2009 steveg)

Merge of Death of Constantine
Support? It doesn't seem the article is going to be fleshed out any time soon. §FreeRangeFrog 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article goes straight to the point of outling Constantine's death as opposed to the information being buried in this much larger article. The death of Constatine has aslo been wikified to comply with the formatting standards.

Various edits
Some comments on my partial reverts and edits of Clinkophonist's edits: Regards, Varana (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To call Eusebius "polemicist" is at least misleading, if not outright non-neutral.
 * Constantine is known for being the first Christian emperor, whether rightfully so or not. If not, and for the claim that he never adopted Christianity, it would be nice to see some recent scholarship denying him being (or considering himself) a Christian.
 * Is there a source for the rebuilding and / or re-dedication of the Milvian Bridge?
 * It was important to Constantine that the gods, including the Christian one, were properly worshiped in his empire. This doesn't support one version of Christianity versus the other, but describes Constantine's view. I hope it's better with my addition of "saw it as his duty..." Both the formulation of orthodoxy, and its enforcement, follow from this belief. If we mention the danger to societal stability, we should also mention the spiritual implications (proper worship = divine favour, a basic Roman concept).
 * Generally, we should try not to give too much weight to refuting the common (mis?)conception of Constantine as a devout Christian in the modern sense.

Pagan
Can anyone be more specific about the other relegions of the period? The word "pagan" is rather broad and does not shed much light on the subject.--Nowa (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"maximin"
is the Maximin referred to on this page the same person as Maximian? there are so many similar names that are so hard to keep track of; spelling mistakes don't make it any easier. 99.245.16.164 (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, all the Maximins (and Maximinuses&mdash;same guy) refer to this dude, not this dude. If you see any obvious mistakes, please alert me (or, you know, fix it yourself). Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Maximian (or Maximianus) was appointed Caesar then Augustus in the West by Diocletian in 285-286. A different person, Maximin (or Maximinus), was appointed Caesar to Galerius in 305 when the latter succeeded Diocletian as Augustus in the East. Ryanwiki (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You might like this
Depiction of Constantine's son with soldier bearing Chi-Rho on his shield.



Galerius' recognition of Constantine as emperor in 306
I don't think Galerius recognised Constantine as emperor in 306. At that point, Galerius had appointed Constantine to Caeser, not Augustus. Therefore, under [Maxentius' rebellion] should "Following Galerius' recognition of Constantine as emperor" be replaced by "Following Galerius' recognition of Constantine as Caesar"...?

Didn't Constantine Kill Christians Who Were Not Affiliated With The Roman Church?
This article seems very biased and seems to ignore the fact that Constantine killed many christians under his rule. He was not for religious tolerance in the way some of this article is making him out to be. Didn't Constantine killed any christian sects that did not come under his control? Like the Gnostic christian sects? Someone please explain. Didn't he wipe out nearly all christian groups that weren't affiliated with the Roman Church (excluding the Byzantine Church)? 71.139.185.67 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Constantine did not go around killing non-Catholic Christians. That is a myth.  The article is, for the most part in regards to this, accurate in what really happened.  There are, however, many myths about Constantine that run abound in anti-Catholic circles.  You may have accidentally picked up on some of that.63.76.144.132 (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is Constantine now?
He's buried at the Church of the Holy Apostles, a place that was demolished, and the trail goes cold when you click on that link. Was his body lost? Is it in a museum or something somewhere? It seems like an explanation is missing here, but my apologies around the room if I'm missing it. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC).


 * It really says: "Following his death, his body was transferred to Constantinople and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles there" What happened to it after that might have a place in the textm if we have a reliable source. On a side note new comments should be placed at the bottom of the page.  Hardyplants (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

``
 * It is no longer known where his relics lay after the Church of the Holy Apostles was demolished. It is extremely likely they are no longer in existence.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman emperors were born on the territory of modern Serbia
Itinerarium Romanum Serbiae Of all the present day countries that made up the Roman Empire, only more emperors were born in Italy than in Serbia. Is it a coincidence?--Свифт (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

--Свифт (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pagan tomb and Christian tomb in Viminacium (Serbia)
 * Christian church from the time of Constantine in Viminacium (Serbia)

Constantine and Licinius were countrymen. Constantine was born in Naissus and Licinius 100 miles away, near Felix Romuliana (Serbia). This is very important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.167.28 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This was because Illyria was a heartland of the military, both for Danubian army bases and for recruitment ... the area between Greece and Slovakia was mostly Latin speaking too until the Slavic invasions. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

South Slavs have Slav-Illyrian origin. No nation in Europe today does not originate only from one nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.167.28 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That actual linguistic predecessors of most "south Slavs" were Latin speakers, surviving in the north-east as Romanians, the south as Vlachs and the east as Dalmatians ... boring as this is. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresco Constantine from Viminacium. Constantine's head in a Museum Belgrade .--Свифт (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous refrences to Constantine on Harold Camping's radio program, "Open Forum."
For about three weeks now, there has been several callers who have brought up Constantine over Family radio's Open Forum program hosted by Harold Camping. The majority of the callers who talk about Constantine on the Open Forum reference that he enstated the Sunday Sabbath and that it was approved by the Pope in honor of Horus the sun god of Egypt and the god of false roman religion. They also claim that it was taught in the catacism that the sunday sabbath is the mark of authority of the catholic church's authority and all religious matters. This is just a suggestion to put this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.170.197 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an awful lot of nonsense on a false prophet's radio program, but thanks for sharing. We might also talk about Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and the nonsense he says about Constantine in the cultural references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.206.110 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Constantine I → Constantine the Great — One of the most important rulers in history almost universally known as "the Great" (certainly more so than, say, Cnut the Great). How many people know that Constantine was the first Roman emperor of that name? I dunno, but not a fraction of those who know him as Constantine the Great. The latter is clearly his WP:COMMONNAME. Gbooking <"Constantine the Great" Rome> and <"Constantine I" Rome>, the results are clear 136,000 versus 16,900 Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "latter is clearly his COMMONNAME" evidence please. -- PBS (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A search of books since 1980 returns about 18,300 and 6,960 results and a search since 1990 About 14,500 and 5,160 results. Have you looked at the quality of the secondary sources your searches returned? -- PBS (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have not heard of the usage "Constantine the Great" before - when I was studying he was just known as "Constantine", so it can't be that common a usage. (So arguably Constantine should be a redirect rather than a disambig, but that's another question). The current title is fully descriptive, falls into line with other monarch articles and fulfils NPOV. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's common usage, and there is no POV issue, as such nicknames are determined by usage independent of us at Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, almost everywhere he is known either as "Constantine the Great" or simply "Constantine". Same case as Alexander the Great, who was actually Alexander III, but is mostly referred to as "the Great" or plain "Alexander". Constantine  ✍  13:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Weak Oppose  The proposed name change is being made without incorporating the articles that are partially titled Constantine I (Bishops of Rome under Constantine I, Constantine I and Christianity, Constantine I and Judaism, etc) and thus does not result in a clean move. Secondly, I have some NPOV concerns in a name change given Constantine is also a saint in the Eastern Orthodoxy church. The current name appears to me a middle ground option. I see some value in the move if only for disambiguation. There are after all a number of people named Constantine I (for example Constantine I of Greece).--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first part can easily be solved if this, which is after all the main page, is moved. For the second issue, even in Orthodox countries he is far more commonly known as the emperor Constantine the Great, rather than Saint Constantine. Certainly the form "Constantine I" is very rarely encountered in the countries directly shaped by Byzantine heritage, where he was set above all other emperors of the same name. Constantine  ✍  12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any data to show that that is indeed the case?--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can easily check the Slavic-language WP versions, where his title "the Great" is always included, but not his ordinal. Same goes for Romanian. The Greek WP is an exception, but that is because it generally tends to follow closely the English model. Per Google however (Constantine I vs Constantine the Great, including forms like "St Constantine the Great".) the latter is both more popular and more accurate (as you said, the former can easily refer to a number of other monarchs). Saint Constantine brings more results, but only because there are hundreds of churches, villages and institutions named after him. For my latter assertion, check any book on Byz. history: Constantine was regarded as the model for all later emperors, usually referred to as "the great and holy emperor Constantine" etc. His status as the first Christian emperor is quite unique in Orthodoxy, probably more so than in Catholicism. Speaking as as someone who grew up in an Orthodox milieu, "Constantine" or "C. the Great" would be the automatic terms of reference for the emperor in a historical context, while "Saint Constantine" would be reserved for religious context, and even there the sobriquet "the Great" would often come up. Constantine  ✍  14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I support the move on the condition the other affected sub-articles are moved as well.---Labattblueboy (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Common name. NPOV issues only arise if we depart from the common name; Consistency issues are not a valid reason for delaying his move, rather if it goes ahead there is a case for moving these other pages as well. Andrewa (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Issues with consistency in naming have been the downfall of many a requested move, most often due to attempts to move a lead article and not the relating sub-articles. Best familiarize yourself with some of the history before making comment.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dependent articles shouldn't be a critical point (probably not a valid oppose), unless there would be some source of controversy renaming them ... in which case that would be a matter for that sub-article. It is understood that they will get renamed to if someone wishes it. Otherwise we could just do a chicken and egg thing and use the main article as an excuse not to move the dependent articles, or vice versa. In any case, WP:COMMONNAME is policy, whereas there is nothing in policy about sub-article names holding back WP:RM requests. There is no reason why a closing admin should take such an objection seriously if common name is proved. Constantine I will of course continue to redirect to Constantine the Great. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider withdrawing that post in terms of WP:ATTACK, and also because it's illogical. Agree that Issues with consistency in naming have been the downfall of many a requested move. The problem is, in terms of policy, at least some of these moves should have gone ahead. We don't always get it right, but two wrongs don't make a right. Andrewa (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with the content of the comment but I can accept that I may have been somewhat overbearing in terms of tone. I'll not withdraw the post however because I don't see it as being fallacious. It's not hard to amend an RM to include additional articles. It is however tedious to clean up the mess associated with split namings after the fact.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. For the same reasons I supported it a while back. Srnec (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. He is more commonly known as Constantine the Great. It's as simple as that.--Tataryn77 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The Great"
I saw this page was recently moved to "Constantine the Great" and I think it should have stayed at Constantine I since the current title is POV. I certainly do not consider Constantine I one of the greater emperors, one of the lesser if anything, for reasons that are not relevant in this discussion. It's POV and would like to raise awareness of this. --Oscararon (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Constantine is more commonly known as "Constantine the Great" than "Constantine I". You could argue Julian the Apostate's name is even more POV, but that is the name he is most commonly known as. It is as simple as that. The fact that you feel Constantine ranks among the lesser emperors also does not matter. You probably dislike him for some sort of religious reason, because as a political and military figure he usually ranks among the "greatest" and most influential of all time. I won't even waste my time explaining why Constantine should not rank among Quintillus or Florianus.--Tataryn77 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. If Britney Spears became more commonly known as Britney the Bald, whether or not she approved of that name or no matter how bald she might be, an encyclopedia article about her should only use "Britney Spears" as the title, and then list within the article the other names she might be known as commonly or not. It shouldn't really matter what others call the person. In my opinion, the only time something other than the person's legal name should be used is when the person herself chooses to use some other name. Ice-T for instance. I'm sorry, but the article should be called Constantine I with "Constantine the Great" listed as a commonly used nickname. It IS a POV nickname, like it or not. Wikipedia really needs to get its act together.
 * Your hypothetical situation is so extremely flawed. And no, the name is not POV. Get used to it, this is how wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently Wikipedia prefers christian favoritism. Titles such as "the great" should be left off of official names altogether. Leave it as an "aka", real knowledge shows no opinion, and at the very least shouldn't push someones, majority of otherwise, onto you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.228.167 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting problem
The page is expanded because a link is, for some reason, unrestrained. Can someone please fix this? I don't like having the scrolly-bar at the bottom of the screen, and I don't know how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.83.139 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed text
I took out this line: "During the Marmaray excavations a 8.000 years old skeleton has been found with 4.000 years old wrecked ships." I don't know if it's true or false, but it has nothing to do with Constantine. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased and clearly not an encyclopaedial article
This is still not worth citing. The bias is thick and renders the article nothing more than a polemic. Constantine was actually not a tru convert and showed no evidence of this in his life at ALL. Malangthon (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable source (the standards for which may be found here) for your claims, or are you just going to exaggerate and slam the article without helping? Even if you do have sources, to be neutral, we must present each side according to the weight given by sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If churches had a history of pagans being saints you might have a point. But you don't have one. Too bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can the editors of Wikipedia please consider the following sources. Thank you! See The Roman and British Martyrology. Publisher: O’Neill and Duggan, Dublin, 1846. 31st December, p. 427: "In Rome, the feast of St. Sylvester, pope, who baptized the Emperor Constantine, and confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice." Also see The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 1, Winter, Dec. 31: Pope St. Sylvester, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fourth Lesson, p. 307: "Silvester [I.] was a Roman by birth, and his father’s name was Rufinus. ... In his thirtieth year he was ordained Priest of the Holy Roman Church by Pope Marcellinus. In the discharge of his duties he became a model for all the clergy, and, after the death of Melchiades, he succeeded him on the Papal throne, [in the year of our Lord 314,] during the reign of Constantine, who had already by public decree proclaimed peace to the Church of Christ. ...It was Silvester who caused him [Emperor Constantine] to recognise the images of the Apostles, administered to him holy Baptism, and cleansed him from the leprosy..." and The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 2, Summer, November 9: Dedication of the Cathedral Church of the Most Holy Saviour, at Rome, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fifth Lesson, pp. 1346-47: "But when the Emperor Constantine had by the Sacrament of Baptism received health both of body and soul, then first in a law by him published was it allowed to the Christians throughout the whole world to build Churches, to the which holy building he exhorted them by his example as well as by his decree. He dedicated in his own Lateran Palace a Church to the Saviour, and built hard by it a Cathedral in the name of St. John the Baptist, upon the place where he had been baptized by holy Silvester and cleansed from his leprosy." Also see the Liber Pontificalis for December 31 and the inscription on a side of the St. John Lateran obelisk at Rome which reads, "CONSTANTINUS PER CRUCEM VICTOR AS SILVESTRO HIC BAPTIZATUS CRUCIS GLORIAM PROPAGAVIT." (Della Letteratura Italiana, by Cesare Cantù. Publisher: Presso L’Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Torino, 1856. Chap. 5, §4, p. 338) CatholicCrusade2013 22:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add another source from the Chronologies of Theophanes the Confessor: Chronographia of Theophanis, ex recensione Ioannis Classeni. Publisher: Bonnae IMPENSIS ED. WEBERI, 1839. Volume 1, p. 25: "A.C. 314 Hoc anno, ut nonnulli referunt, magnus Constantinus cum Crispo filio Romae a Sylvestro baptizatus est..." (Translation: A.C. 314 This year, some relate, the great Constantine, with his son Crispus, was baptized by Sylvester at Rome.) CatholicCrusade2013 23:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)

Clear, orderly succession after all
An earlier debate concerned whether or not there was an orderly succession among his sons. Tell it to this table from the "List of Byzantine Emperors" Article.

We should accordingly edit this, "List of Roman Emperors," and other Articles concerning Emperors shortly after him. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except of course, Constantius II would be listed after Constans I by outlasting the co-reign, kind of like how Britain/England's William III is listed after his wife Mary II. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sections on Licinius and Constantine the Great need harmonizing
The section "Character & Legacy" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licinius and the section "Wars against Licinius" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I need to be harmonized. As they stand they represent opposing viewpoints, no good for an encyclopedia. Given some information in the Constantine article, the Licinius article is one-sided (e.g. overlooks "In the year 320, Licinius reneged on the religious freedom promised by the Edict of Milan in 313 and began to oppress Christians anew,[192] generally without bloodshed, but resorting to confiscations and sacking of Christian office-holders." which is cited in the Constantine article). The Constantine article makes no mention of the assertions in the Licinius article. Englishforyou (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Englishforyou

Christianity Portal
Shouldn't the Christianity Portal be on the Constantine and Christianity page, not this one? The other page is completely missing the link to the religious pages. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mislabelled? Constantine colossus image in introduction
The image labelled as the colossus in the introduction is not the colossus I know of, so unless there is another colossus out there, this is mislabeled. At any rate, this is certainly not THE colossus, because it lacks the enlarged eyes and dimpled chin, and it has a rounded (not rough/broken) base. --75.18.185.128 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead image is not a well known or iconic image of the emperor, it is heavily restored and the nose is quite obviously not original. Also, the image does not show the characteristic hooked nose, wide and deep jaw or prominent chin shown on most images of the emperor. It should be replaced by a more representative image. Urselius (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Constantine "legalized" Christianity
I got into an argument over this issue on another page (see Talk:Arius--and I seem to be losing the argument...in the sense that the two people who have commented disagree with me...but their arguments have not persuaded me). I do not think it is accurate to say that Constantine "legalized" Christianity. It was legalized by the emperor Galerius in 311 (throughout the Roman Empire). Here is a quote from Timothy Barnes, of University of Edinburgh: "'In the year 313 Constantine guaranteed legal toleration for the Christians in the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan.' So have we all learned at our school desks, and yet not a single word of that sentence is true. For the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311; the originator of this legal measure was not Constantine, but Galerius; and there never was an 'Edict of Milan' which concerned itself with the questions of the Christians. Admittedly, a document which people are in the habit of calling by this name is still preserved in its original wording. But, first, this document is no edict; second, it was not issued in Milan; third, it was not issued by Constantine; and, fourth, it does not grant legal toleration, which the Christians had already possessed for some time, to the whole empire: its content has a much more restricted significance."

- Barnes, Constantine, 95

Also, Frend, speaking of the "Edict of Toleration" (of Galerius, in 311), "The edict formally ended persecution, freed imprisoned Christians, and restored Christianity to the de facto situation which it had enjoyed for a generation prior to 303." (The Rise of Christianity, 480). Or, again, see Henry Chadwick, "The intensity of Galerius' feeling is shown by the edict he issued on 30 April 311 when he was dying in great pain. He explains that he had tried to persuade the Christians to return to the religion of the forefathers...and he now grants them toleration and the right of assembly..." (The Early Church, pg. 122). In what sense, then, is it appropriate to say that Constantine "legalized" Christianity; even if you accept the idea (I don't) that the so called "Edict of Milan" was really of any legal effect, Christianity had already been legalized by the Emperor Galerius by the time that Constantine and Licinius met in Milan in 313. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocyril (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Extremes by all means
Although the article makes a reference in the introduction's third paragraph about the "extremes" written about this (and other too) person and "his" actions, the article itself is an "extreme" exaggeration about what this individual actually "did" and "achieved", by all means for someone that barely lived thirty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.15.84 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, he was 65 years old when he died. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic Baptism of Saint Constantine The Great, by Pope Sylvester I
Constantine The Great, received The Catholic Baptism from Pope Sylvester I. This is attested to in the Roman Catholic Martyrology on December 31 of each year, under the heading of Saint Sylvester I Pope. "Romæ natális sancti Silvéstri Primi, Papæ et Confessóris; qui Magnum Constantínum Imperatórem baptizávit, et Nicænam confirmávit Synodum, ac, multis áliis rebus sanctíssime gestis, quiévit in pace. At Rome, the birthday of Pope St. Sylvester I, confessor, who baptized Emperor Constantine the Great, and confirmed the council of Nicaea.  After performing many other holy deeds, he rested in peace." from http://www.breviary.mobi/martyrology/mart12/mart1231.htm The mother of Saint Constantine was The Empress Saint Helena, who founded The Holy Cross. "Helena (empress) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_(Empress) This article is about the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine. For the Welsh saint sometimes called Helen, see Elen ... Saint Helena or Saint Helen" from google search engine. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 04:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)
 * philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)

Disputing the "baptism" at death, by the Arian heretic Eusebius, of the Great Constantine I, Holy Catholic Emperor: He was baptized during life by Saint Pope Sylvester I.
Nota Bene: In many of the Wikipedia articles on Saint Constantine The Great, it is erroneously stated that he was baptized at death by an Arian heretic. This is not true, as he received the Catholic Baptism during his life from Saint Pope Sylvester I. Many references have been given, for example, to the Catholic Breviary, the Catholic Martyrology, etc... Hence, the reader will know to go and search out the truth for himself. The Holy Catholic Church celebrates his feastday, along with his mother, Saint Helena, each year, on the 21st day of the fifth month. Thank you. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources suggest otherwise. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the issue of The Baptism of Saint Constantine The Great by Pope Saint Sylvester I: Seeking posting on the "Article" page.
For weeks now, I have sought to get this fact noted on Wikipedia. I have provided footnote references, and posted articles therefrom. May I ask if this could be agreed upon, that is, that it is believed in Catholic circles, that Constantine was validly baptized in a True Catholic Ceremony, by the reigning pope, Pope Saint Sylvester I? I realize that anti-Catholic writers want to make this fact a so called legend, but, I will continue to input articles, pictures, and reference notes on this, until it is posted on the "Article" page, not just on the "Talk" page. This is a very important issue. Please advise. Thanks. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems perfectly adequately covered in the "Donation of Constantine" section, as a later legend. No modern historian, Catholic or otherwise, is likely to believe it, and Eusebius remained (just) an orthodox Catholic bishop. That is all the consensus you are likely to find, so I think you have pushed the point far enough. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Our articles mentioning Constantine's baptism must summarize what the reliable sources say about the matter. The self-published works of Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that User:PhilipofBVM carefully read Disruptive editing, from beginning to end. He simply is not going to get his way by threatening further disruption. I don't know anything about the substance of this controversy, but I know that the user is in danger of being barred from editing on this topic. He may have made a valid suggestion about "it is believed in Catholic circles, that Constantine was validly baptized in a True Catholic Ceremony, by the reigning pope, Pope Saint Sylvester I." Does he have any reliable source for that fact? And what do others with more knowledge than I think about his suggestion to head for consensus in such a way? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that credible historians agree that Constantine was baptized in the final days of his life by Eusebius of Nicomedia, but this factual assertion is opposed by some traditionalists because Eusebius was considered an Arian heretic by other Christians. "True Catholic" refers to a tiny factional offshoot that rejects the authority of all modern Popes. This is a fringe viewpoint, as far as I can tell, which does not belong in this article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for addition of opinion on the Baptism of Constantine
I would please like the addition to this page of the valid opinion that Emperor Constantine was baptized by Pope St. Sylvester I. If the editors of this page do not personally believe this, that is fine. At least please present it as a valid secondary opinion. Here are sources to back up this opinion. I would appreciate having both sides presented. Thank you for your time and consideration. Here are a few valid sources:

It is also an opinion that Emperor Constantine the Great was baptized by Pope St. Sylvester I. See The Roman and British Martyrology. Publisher: O’Neill and Duggan, Dublin, 1846. 31st December, p. 427: "In Rome, the feast of St. Sylvester, pope, who baptized the Emperor Constantine, and confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice." Also see The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 1, Winter, Dec. 31: Pope St. Sylvester, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fourth Lesson, p. 307: "Silvester [I.] was a Roman by birth, and his father’s name was Rufinus. ... In his thirtieth year he was ordained Priest of the Holy Roman Church by Pope Marcellinus. In the discharge of his duties he became a model for all the clergy, and, after the death of Melchiades, he succeeded him on the Papal throne, [in the year of our Lord 314,] during the reign of Constantine, who had already by public decree proclaimed peace to the Church of Christ. ...It was Silvester who caused him [Emperor Constantine] to recognise the images of the Apostles, administered to him holy Baptism, and cleansed him from the leprosy..." and The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 2, Summer, November 9: Dedication of the Cathedral Church of the Most Holy Saviour, at Rome, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fifth Lesson, pp. 1346-47: "But when the Emperor Constantine had by the Sacrament of Baptism received health both of body and soul, then first in a law by him published was it allowed to the Christians throughout the whole world to build Churches, to the which holy building he exhorted them by his example as well as by his decree. He dedicated in his own Lateran Palace a Church to the Saviour, and built hard by it a Cathedral in the name of St. John the Baptist, upon the place where he had been baptized by holy Silvester and cleansed from his leprosy." Also see the Liber Pontificalis for December 31 and the inscription on a side of the St. John Lateran obelisk at Rome which reads, "CONSTANTINUS PER CRUCEM VICTOR AS SILVESTRO HIC BAPTIZATUS CRUCIS GLORIAM PROPAGAVIT." (Della Letteratura Italiana, by Cesare Cantù. Publisher: Presso L’Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Torino, 1856. Chap. 5, §4, p. 338)CatholicCrusade2013 22:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)
 * I would also like to add another source from the Chronologies of Theophanes the Confessor: Chronographia of Theophanis, ex recensione Ioannis Classeni. Publisher: Bonnae IMPENSIS ED. WEBERI, 1839. Volume 1, p. 25: "A.C. 314 Hoc anno, ut nonnulli referunt, magnus Constantinus cum Crispo filio Romae a Sylvestro baptizatus est..." (Translation: A.C. 314 This year, some relate, the great Constantine, with his son Crispus, was baptized by Sylvester at Rome.) CatholicCrusade2013 23:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? When modern university sources state otherwise?
 * 1.The Roman and British Martyrology: Now First Translated,, published in 1846, no author given, no translator mentioned. Terribly outdated. Nothing, academically speaking, to really base any claim on.
 * 2."The Roman Breviary reformed by order of the holy oecumenical Council of Trent", translated by John, Marquess of Bute. This book is a simple translation done by a non-academic. John Crichton-Stuart was not a historian and appears to have had many interests, Catholicism being one of them.
 * 3.Della Letteratura Italiana, by Cesare Cantù. Publisher: Presso L’Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Torino, 1856. Another terribly outdated source.
 * Ultimately, the modern sources are what matter. Antiquated sources by questionable authors will not work. If, according to you, Constantine's baptism was done by Sylvester I, then why do modern sources state Eusebius baptized Constantine? BTW, the Lateran Obelisk's inscription was added in 1588 and is wrong.
 * Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity, by Kevin Kaatz, page 113, Constantine was baptized in 337.
 * Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, by Raymond Van Dam, Cambridge University Press, page 20, "Shortly before his death in 337, Constantine had been baptized by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia."
 * Christianity in the Later Roman Empire: A Sourcebook, by David M. Gwynn, page 34, "Constantine was baptized in Nicomedia in 337 after falling ill."
 * The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, ed. by Geoffrey Greatrex, Sebastian P. Brock, Witold Witakowski, Liverpool University Press, page 80.
 * Constantine and Eusebius, by Timothy David Barnes, Harvard University Press, page 259-260.
 * The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 12, The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337, ed. by Alan Bowman, Peter Garnsey, Averil Cameron, page 104-105.
 * These are modern sources stating Constantine was baptized in 337, with university sources stating this baptism was done by Eusebius! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can attack my sources if you like but you are not being neutral or fair. I am simply trying to show that this "opinion" is not new or held solely by "fringe" groups. It is a valid opinion and to keep it out of this article would be prejudice. All I am asking is for it to be told as a secondary opinion. It is quite true that there are many sources cited throughout Wikipedia that are not only "modern" according to your standards. Please add my above listed sources. Thank you. CatholicCrusade2013 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)
 * Which does not explain why you have no modern historians that support this "theory" of yours. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about modern sources in this situation. I was asked to produce sources, I have. They ARE valid sources and for some weird reason everyone is being prejudice. Regarding the Martyrology source above that Kansas Bear didn't like, here is a more "modern" one to make you happy. It is translated by Raphael Collins and he has a B. A.:


 * The Roman Martyrology Published by Order of Gregory XIII, Revised by Authority of Urban VIII and Clement X, Augmented and Corrected in 1749 by Benedict XIV. The 3rd Turin Edition, translated by Rev. Raphael Collins, B.A., 1946; Introduction by Rev. Joseph B. Collins, S.S., D.D., PH.D.; Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. "The Thirty-First Day of December" p. 295: "At Rome, the birthday of Pope St. Silvester I, confessor, who baptized Emperor Constantine the Great, and confirmed the council of Nicaea." CatholicCrusade2013 02:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)
 * ":I really don't care about modern sources in this situation". Clearly, since published academic sources do not state what you want to hear.
 * Rev. Joseph B. Collins, simply translated what was already written, no different than what John, Marquess of Bute did. Since this information is not sourced by modern historians, then it fails to be a reliable source for history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If modern writers are too prejudice against Emperor Constantine to state the truth or at least even mention Constantine's baptism by Pope Sylvester, it is obvious that I would not cite them when I am trying to show that this IS a valid opinion, even though not held by "modern" so-called scholars. Before you were even born these books were considered valuable sources; and to Catholics, they still are. Kansas Bear, you are playing a mind game with sources and I am not going to keep going back and forth with you. You are but one contributor to Wikipedia and I don't yet believe everyone on here has their mind as closed to fairness and neutrality.
 * I am asking again that my sources are allowed as entries on this page. CatholicCrusade2013 04:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)


 * Your "reliable source" page even admits that:
 * "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues..." This is one case of this. I am presenting "outdated" material since it is what I have available to present the "opinion" that Constantine was baptized by Sylvester. You can look over many articles on Wikipedia that cite similar works to what I have cited and the sources have remained. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please accept these additions to the main article. CatholicCrusade2013 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)

Scholarly sources are available. They are not absent. No evidence has been presented that these scholarly sources are outdated. You have not produced any reliable non-academic sources. Accordingly, the passage you quoted has no applicability to this situation.

If the New York Times or the Smithsonian magazine, or some other publication with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking published an article examining both sides of this dispute, then we could discuss it. But translations of centuries old devotional texts are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The notes to "Eusebius Life of Constantine" Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999, pp. 340-341, by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall state "The Emperor died at Pentecost (64), the last day of the Easter festival, 22 May 337, after his baptism." and "The baptism of Constantine became the subject of legends and apocryphal accounts, and was soon relocated in Rome and ascribed to Pope Sylvester, eventually becoming the basis of the medieval 'Donation of Constantine'; the Actus Sylvestri version was known to John Malalas (sixth century.) and can be traced to the late fourth or early fifth century". I don't believe there is any debate on the matter among modern scholars that it was done just before his death as was common then. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Constantine's canonization in the Church
It seems to me that this article should indicate that the Roman Emperor Constantine I, the Great, is a saint of the Church, which is especially evident in the Orthodox Church, but it has never been denied by the Roman Catholic Church. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)