Talk:Heraclius Constantine

"novus"
He is introduced simply as 'Heraclius Constantine' on p. 349: that was his personal name, shown in bold, and should definitely be preferred over a separate notice in the following page. 'Official name' implies a title or honorific of some sort is included (cf. 'Flavius'), and the author writes 'novus' with lower-case initials. Avilich (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything supporting that the name given in bold is his personal name, and not just a shorthand? I don't see why we should not include "Flavius" (which we include for preceding emperors - as we should) or the "novus" (which is well-attested as part of his name and style - some modern authors even call him "Heraclius New Constantine" - see here) when they are both cited to a reliable source. At this point it feels like removing information just for the sake of it. The entry for Constans II (on page 333) has the heading "Constans 2 (Heraclius Constantinus) = Constans II", where the historiographical nickname Constans is more prominent than his actual name Heraclius Constantinus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Flavius" was not a personal name, it had become fossilized in the imperial nomenclature by that point, just like "pius felix Augustus", and if one title isn't included, the other shouldn't either. The PLRE is not consistent on this matter, as scholarship only clarified this recently. Right after giving the so-called 'official' form of his name, the author proceeds to give tons of different renditions of it in different primary sources, and fails to explain these variations. His use of lower-case n does nothing to clarify the matter. The titles of each PLRE entry are always a person's full personal name, and so the simplest way to approach this is to simply copy the name he is introduced as (p. 349): Heraclius Constantinus. Note that this is also how he's referred to in coins (p. 350). Avilich (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but if we omit Flavius here it should be omitted from the articles of many other emperors as well (who right now still include it) - several reliable sources use "Flavius" for these late emperors at the threshold between Rome and Byzantium without commenting on its status in the imperial nomenclature so I personally feel like it should be included. Going on a Flavius deletion spree probably needs more consensus than just me and you arguing. When you say that "scholarship only clarified this recently" I don't know what you're referring to, but I would be interested in reading up if you have any sources on this.
 * I don't think there is much of a problem that other versions are mentioned as well, the author clearly says that the official full name was Flavius Heraclius novus Constantinus and there are other sources that corroborate that. That the n in novus is not capitalized isn't much of a problem, some other sources capitalize it (see here) and I don't see how that matters much. That he is called Heraclius Constantinus on his coins is not true for his entire tenure as emperor (later coins just call him Constantinus) and coins do often use shorthands. Justinian's coins just call him Iustinianus but we know his full name was (Flavius) Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus.
 * Even if we were to omit the "Flavius" and the "novus", the insertion of "novus" in the middle of his personal name when used in his titles, which makes him "Heraclius the new Constantine" rather than just "Heraclius Constantine" feels like a sufficiently odd official style to warrant mentioning in some capacity. I take it you would also oppose using the "regnal name" parameter in the infobox for this? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel too strongly about any of this, so if you still feel like the current form is the best I'll trust your judgement. I don't oppose using the regnal name function at all. I mention that "scholarship only clarified this recently" because the Flavius question was only apparently solved after most of the PLRE had already been published, and so the PLRE often errs on this respect (Martindale incorrectly assigns the name to Majorian and Cassiodorus, for example). The two sources I can recommend on this are Consuls of the Late Roman Empire (Bagnall et al. 1987), pp. 36–40, and this article (1988) by Alan Cameron. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added it as the regnal name in the infobox - I think you're right that his actual personal name was Heraclius Constantinus, but I also think that it is worth mentioning that he officially reigned as (Flavius) Heraclius novus Constantinus (especially since IIRC he is one of the last few emperors where "Flavius" is actually attested as being in use). If you're fine with that compromise we can call it a day.
 * I'll check out the sources you mentioned, all I knew was that "Flavius" was widespread in Late Antiquity but it makes sense that several figures would mistakenly have had it attributed to them by later historians. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm ok with that. Oh, and I just noticed the sources I provided have the same identical text. The journal article is apparently a transcription of pp. 36–40, but the book will offer the larger context and all the examples of consuls. Avilich (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Constantine III (Byzantine emperor) → Heraclius Constantine – The name used for this emperor varies from source to source. While either Constantine III or Heraclius Constantine is typically used as a title, both names are also most often mentioned. DIR uses either depending on the article: 1, 2; Britannica and Livius use Constantine III; the PLRE, the ODB, Metropolitan Museum of Art and British Museum use Heraclius Constantine. Other published scholarly sources also vary in which name is used: Constantine III (1, 2, 3 - Foss (2015) mentions some more but it was actually difficult for me to find sources here), Heraclius Constantine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Because it's interesting to note, numismatists appear to universally favour Heraclius Constantine: 1, 2, 3, 4.

The biggest reason for this move request is that there are two Roman emperors numbered as Constantine III: this one and the usurper-turned-recognised co-emperor Claudius Constantinus of the 5th century. This has been noted as confusing even in academia (link). It's impossible to determine with full certainty which name is used more for this emperor. Using Google Ngrams, Constantine III appears to win out massively (link), but keep in mind that the results for "Constantine III" also include those of the western emperor, as well as the six other figures often given this name and number (see Constantine III). Books using "Constantine III" seem to mostly either be really old or to be referring to the western emperor (link) and most papers using that name also appear to be referring to the western emperor - though this is also likely because the western emperor is a more relevant historical figure.

Even if "Constantine III" was to be more common, and even though the disambiguations "(Western Roman emperor)" and "(Byzantine emperor)" allows differentiation between the two imperial Constantine III:s, WP:QUALIFIER says that it is preferrable to go with "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title", if possible, to avoid disambiguation with parantheses. I think 'Heraclius Constantine' is a clear case of that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support The carefully collected evidence seems to show that Heraclius Constantine is common enough for QUALIFIER to be applicable here. The numeral is also probably a later historical convention, whereas Heraclius Constantine is his name. And although plain google searches are very inadequate as standalone evidence, there are only twice as many results for "Constantine III" over "Heraclius Constantine": some of the former will of course refer to the western emperor. Avilich (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also strengthening the case for moving is that "Constantine III" can apparently also apply to Constans II. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)