Talk:Licinius

Appointment as Augustus
The following indicates the influence of Licinius immediately following the reaffirmation of Galerius position of Augustus in the East:

Though declared a usurper, Maxentius kept control of Rome and Italy, effectively limiting Licinius to no more than Illyricum; by 312 Maxentius had even extended his rule to North Africa. In the meantime, Maximian unsuccessfully turned against his son, and fled to Constantine in Gaul, whom he also later tried to overthrow— an attempt that led to his death in 310. Maximin Daia, resentful that Galerius had chosen Licinius rather than himself as Augustus in the West, had induced his own troops to proclaim him Augustus; Galerius recognized the title in 309— 310.

Boatwright, Mary T. Romans : From Village to Empire. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2004. p 451.

This would seem to indicate that popular support of Maximin Daia and Maxentius forced Galerius to affirm his proclamation of Augustus in the West.L Hamm 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

On Licinius Life After Chrysopolis
The raising of a barbarian army by Licinius while under house arrest in Thessalonike, seems to be dubious, at best having been related much after the fact:

In the next century the historian Socrates claims to know that Licinius had plotted with some barbarians to renew the war— not a very likely story at all.

from Pohlsander, Hans A. Constantine. London, UK: Routledge, 1996. p 43. L Hamm 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for War Between Constantine I and Licinius
The article states that treasonous actions on the part of Licinius, and public anger at them, caused the outbreak of war. However, the Encyclopedia of World Biography in its entry on Constantine I states:

''By 313 Constantine and Licinius were established as corulers of the Roman world. Their relationship was cemented in that year by the marriage of Licinius to Constantine's half sister Constantia; but jealousy and ambition [it does not state whose] generated friction and suspicion between the emperors, and in 323 war broke out after Constantine had violated Licinius's territory. Licinius was defeated and deposed, but his life was spared at the intercession of Constantia. The following year, however, Constantine found it expedient to execute him.''

I recommend a revision of that section - or a citing of primary sources one way or the other, for it is contradicted as it stands now.

L Hamm 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted "The outward reconciliation left Licinius in possession of Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, but he later added numerous provinces to Constantine's control." in the second to the last paragraph, as it read like Licinius is voluntarily giving provinces to Constantine. Which is weird. Futher, the reconciliation apparently lasted for 10 years.  Sounds a little more substantial that an "outward reconciliation".  Naerhu 09:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please fix this
This is in the introduction:
 * Co-author of the Edict of Milan that granted official toleration to Christians in the Roman Empire, for the majority of his reign he was the rival of Constantine I.

This sentence contains two statements that, within the context of the sentence, and within the context of an encyclopedia (written to inform people who do not know the facts already) appear to have nothing to do with each other in any way at all.

The problem is that the first part of the sentence does not mention the fact that it was with Constantine that he co-authored this document. There are several ways of stating the matter in a way that is intelligible and doesn't rely to heavily on the deductive powers of your reader. Can I also suggest that "Edict of Milan" needs to be linked.

Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Oatley2112 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A field army of 170,000 men?
I don't think this was logistically possible. 74.96.53.170 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for this figure (see Battle of Adrianople (324)) is Michael Grant's The Emperor Constantine, London. ISBN 0-75380-5286, (1993) pg. 46. He states it was one of the biggest battles of the Fourth Century, but according to Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine state and society (1997), pg. 36, the army of Licinius at the Battle of Adrianople was approximately 35,000 (against Constantine'a army of some 20,000). However, in Hans Pohlsander's work, The Emperor Constantine (2004), pg. 44, he states that both sides had armies in excess of over 100,000 men each. The excessive numbers are not in and of themselves outrageous - the Late Empire under Constantine had a standing army of some 500,000 men, and both men would surely have mustered as many troops as possible to defeat their rival. In terms of logistics, the Romans were very good at managing large numbers of troops in the field, and the plain of Adrianople is certainly large enough to have accommodated armies in such numbers. In the end it falls to which secondary source you wish to follow. Oatley2112 (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More likely about 150,000 soldiers in Constantine's regular army. Half a million was too unwieldy even for Augustus with a very prosperous empire.74.37.202.51 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 500,000 is a ridiculous figure - I've never read that before, anywhere. Even at the end of the Civil Wars, Augustus wasn't facing that many soldiers to reduce/settle . . .  50.111.15.21 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2021 (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

Marriage with Constatia
It is written that the marriage happened in march 313. Wasn't it february actually, when ceasars made an agreement about edict? --Janezdrilc (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Image
How sure is it that the image shown on the top of the article is actually of Licinius. I have yet to do further research, but from what the description tells me, it seems to be pretty unsure rather that bust is truly of Licinius or not. I ask this because from the crisis of the third century onwards I’ve seen a lot of these statues were the identification is unsure. Reman Empire (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)