Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Constantine (son of Basil I)

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Constantine (son of Basil I)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my work to bring up all the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I belive it meets the criteria. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Support by CPA
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Constantine (died 3 September 879) was a junior Byzantine emperor" Maybe add his birth as well?
 * "to c. 865, based upon the timeline of Pseudo-Symeon;[2][3][4][5]" Maybe trim one citation per WP:CITETRIM?
 * "that not only Leo, but also Stephen" I think this is MOS:EGG.
 * There are seven howevers maybe trim some?
 * "her investigation of the rumors of infidelity" Isn't it rumours?
 * "Rumors" is the US spelling, I believe "rumours" is the British (and possibly other Anglosphere) spelling; I tend to write all my articles in American English as they are too far removed from now to really deserve one or the other. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Louis II" Maybe add here reign?
 * "leaving Leo as the primary heir.[2][22][24][33]" Per WP:CITETRIM.
 * Is there a link or code like OCLC or ISBN for Nilsson?
 * Unfortunately, no, not that I could find. The best that can be found is the Lund University Press id, which doesn't really mesh with the template.
 * "the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Louis II" Maybe add here reign?
 * "leaving Leo as the primary heir.[2][22][24][33]" Per WP:CITETRIM.
 * Is there a link or code like OCLC or ISBN for Nilsson?
 * Unfortunately, no, not that I could find. The best that can be found is the Lund University Press id, which doesn't really mesh with the template.
 * Is there a link or code like OCLC or ISBN for Nilsson?
 * Unfortunately, no, not that I could find. The best that can be found is the Lund University Press id, which doesn't really mesh with the template.
 * Done all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

HF - support
I am hoping to get to this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "born between 855 and 865" - but the phrasing in the body doesn't directly rule out a birth after 865
 * It technically does, although I'm not certain how to make that more clear; mainline historians tend to follow the 865 dating, although some place it earlier. It really is a factor of several moving parts, including if Maria existed, when Eudokia and Basil married, if Constantine was Maria's son or Eudokias, etc etc... I've added c. for understandability's sake in the lede and infobox.
 * "for which he shared a triumph." - recommend linking triumph as a baseline knowledge of Roman/Byzantine history is required to know that a specific practice is being referred to here w/o the link
 * "born in the purple.[14] further reinforced by the fact that Alexander " - weird sentence break, can this be cleaned up somehow?
 * ✅, I'm assuming I accidentally deleted something while working in my userspace.
 * Are Basil and Michael III related? It isn't quite clear unless I missed it
 * No, Basil was just a dude that Michael liked, and chose to make emperor. One might notice that the Byzantines didn't try the whole "make an unrelated guy your co-emperor" thing again... I've clarified it in the body
 * "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI, Constantine VII" - link Constantine and indicate that he's Leo's son?
 * Just a thought, but would it be worthwhile to consider indicating when they're first mentioned which of the ancient sources are contemporary and which are modern? For instance, Symeon Logothete is stated to be of the 10th century, but not until his last mention
 * Just a thought, but would it be worthwhile to consider indicating when they're first mentioned which of the ancient sources are contemporary and which are modern? For instance, Symeon Logothete is stated to be of the 10th century, but not until his last mention
 * Just a thought, but would it be worthwhile to consider indicating when they're first mentioned which of the ancient sources are contemporary and which are modern? For instance, Symeon Logothete is stated to be of the 10th century, but not until his last mention

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
Will have a look over the following days. Constantine  ✍  16:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, . Constantine  ✍  18:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * the reader might wonder what a 'junior emperor' is. Perhaps something like ' was a junior Byzantine emperor, alongside Basil I as the senior emperor, from January 868 to 3 September 879'?
 * Parentage
 * a bit convoluted and tries to cover too many things. I would suggest to introduce here the issue in summary, and leave out the reference to 'sources in the tradition of the 10th-century Symeon Logothete' as this is unimportant to the average reader: e.g. 'the parentage of Constantine is heavily disputed. Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father, but he had two wives, Maria and Eudokia Ingerina. Furthermore, Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael III, while married to Basil.'
 * The 'Historiography' section does a very good job of summing up the primary sources, and should IMO be drawn into this section.
 * Do you mean summarized above, or entirely moved?
 * Entirely moved. Constantine  ✍  11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * since 'Macedonian' is unclear here (the label is geographic more than ethnic), I suggest removing it.
 * Done; the thought did occur to me that, if she exists, this is about a third of all known facts preserved by history. A fairly depressing thought to have at 7 am...
 * I know that feeling :(. Constantine  ✍  11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the proper place to introduce the sources about Eudokia being Michael's mistress and that the marriage with Basil was a way to bring her to the palace.
 * Not sure how best to introduce this at the juncture you suggest, put into an awkward position by the primary sources themselves; according to them, either Maria exists and Basil was cuckolded (Symeon), or Maria didn't exist and it was all Eudokia (Leo/Constantine). Both sides agree there was a marriage to Eudokia in 865, which does not preclude either option. While Leo has a firm birthdate of September the following year, this doesn't preclude Eudokia from having been the mother of Constantine (on the right side of wedlock even). Would appreciate suggestions on how to explain that while everyone agrees there was a wedding, the whole cuckolding thing is a Symeon deal. Lacking that I have left it out to let the next paragraph explain the whole deal.
 * Still thinking over the best way to go about this. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael III (r. 842–867), while married to Basil' suffices for me. Constantine  ✍  16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * relevance is unclear to the uninitiated; add here that this was the dynasty founded by Basil.
 * I assume this is intended to mean that only Alexander was Basil's son according to Hamartolos?
 * ✅, rephrased to "was Basil's only legitimate son."
 * 'In her investigation of the rumors of infidelity, Karlin-Hayter...'
 * The text until this point does not mention that Basil preferred Constantine, or that this has been used as an argument by historians on Leo's parentage. This is done later on, at
 * In general, the entire section could IMO be summarized per WP:SS; it deals with the parentage of Leo (and Stephen), which touches upon Constantine, but is not the subject here. Simply stating that doubts about the parentage of Leo and Stephen exist, and that many medieval and modern historians consider Leo at least a child of Michael, would be enough. Only the parts that impact the theories on Constantine's parentage should be retained.
 * Not sure how best to cut down this section, would appreciate suggestions on what you think needs to go, and what should stay. IMO I could cut back on some of the details, but leave the general structure, but I'm not sure if that goes far enough. Thoughts?
 * Not going to insist on this, although I do recommend it. Here is a rough draft: 'Some sources hostile to the Macedonian dynasty, which was founded by Basil, have suggested that other sons of Basil were not his own. These sources claim that Eudokia was Michael's mistress, and that the marriage between Basil and Eudokia was intended to be purely nominal. Accordingly, the parentage of both Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912) and Stephen I of Constantinople, has been questioned, leaving Emperor Alexander (r. 912–913) as Basil's only legitimate son. Most modern scholars doubt the accuracy of such claims, considering Leo as the legitimate son of Basil and Eudokia.' This would leave the detailed explanations for the article on Leo, where they are more relevant...
 * wherefore? the argument here is unclear.
 * On the table, this is a very nice piece of work. Can I suggest the following: a) make it into a template, so it can be reused in the relevant articles and b) add another header line to distinguish medieval sources from modern ones.
 * In general, the entire section could IMO be summarized per WP:SS; it deals with the parentage of Leo (and Stephen), which touches upon Constantine, but is not the subject here. Simply stating that doubts about the parentage of Leo and Stephen exist, and that many medieval and modern historians consider Leo at least a child of Michael, would be enough. Only the parts that impact the theories on Constantine's parentage should be retained.
 * Not sure how best to cut down this section, would appreciate suggestions on what you think needs to go, and what should stay. IMO I could cut back on some of the details, but leave the general structure, but I'm not sure if that goes far enough. Thoughts?
 * Not going to insist on this, although I do recommend it. Here is a rough draft: 'Some sources hostile to the Macedonian dynasty, which was founded by Basil, have suggested that other sons of Basil were not his own. These sources claim that Eudokia was Michael's mistress, and that the marriage between Basil and Eudokia was intended to be purely nominal. Accordingly, the parentage of both Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912) and Stephen I of Constantinople, has been questioned, leaving Emperor Alexander (r. 912–913) as Basil's only legitimate son. Most modern scholars doubt the accuracy of such claims, considering Leo as the legitimate son of Basil and Eudokia.' This would leave the detailed explanations for the article on Leo, where they are more relevant...
 * wherefore? the argument here is unclear.
 * On the table, this is a very nice piece of work. Can I suggest the following: a) make it into a template, so it can be reused in the relevant articles and b) add another header line to distinguish medieval sources from modern ones.
 * On the table, this is a very nice piece of work. Can I suggest the following: a) make it into a template, so it can be reused in the relevant articles and b) add another header line to distinguish medieval sources from modern ones.
 * On the table, this is a very nice piece of work. Can I suggest the following: a) make it into a template, so it can be reused in the relevant articles and b) add another header line to distinguish medieval sources from modern ones.


 * Later life
 * this belongs to the first introduction of Basil, above. Also, please add a gloss for parakoimomenos (e.g. head chamberlain).
 * Moved and added.
 * pipe or replace with patrikios
 * Link 'coronation' to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor
 * Link 'Holy Roman Emperor Louis II' and add regnal dates
 * This is done in the parentage section above; do you suggest doing it twice? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice it, withdrawn. Constantine  ✍  16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * start a new sentence at 'historians...'
 * since Germanicia is a city, 'in' is not right; perhaps 'in the region of Germanicia', or 'against Germanicia'
 * What was Santabarenos' role/position?
 * Is not part of his life?
 * Moved.
 * What was Santabarenos' role/position?
 * Is not part of his life?
 * Moved.
 * Is not part of his life?
 * Moved.

Article is complete and accurate. My concerns above are mostly cosmetic and stylistic (as well as trying to avoid having the average reader overloaded trying to follow the various arguments). Once they are done, I will be happy to support. Constantine  ✍  18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * a small reminder. Constantine  ✍  13:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try to get around to it this week. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That was unfortunately a lie... I'll try to get it done on Friday. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the (very) long wait, I've responded to or asked for clarification/suggestions on everything now, I believe. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ! No worries, glad this is getting concluded. I've replied above on shortening the section on Constantine's brothers, but other than that, I am satisfied and ready to support at this time. Constantine  ✍  16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review by Hawkeye7 - pass

 * Two medieval coins. Licences okay. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass

 * Sources are high quality.
 * Nilsson (2006) is a BA thesis. That's a problem under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nilsson has been removed, all else should be good. Thank you! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead
Very nice article. I'll be happy to support once these comments have been addressed.Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Make sure all the circa and reign templates are formatted correctly. For example, I see " 867–886" instead of "(r. 867 – 886)" (go into the code to see the difference).
 * Link Byzantine emperor in the lead.
 * "Constantine was born at an unconfirmed date: Historian Nicholas Adontz...": I think "the" should be added before "historian" (see False title).
 * Who is Shaun Tougher? The article never really explains this, and there is no hyperlink to assist the reader.
 * "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine is the son of Basil and Eudokia." => "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia."
 * Try adding more categories, such as Category:Sons of Byzantine emperors.
 * Who is Shaun Tougher? The article never really explains this, and there is no hyperlink to assist the reader.
 * "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine is the son of Basil and Eudokia." => "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia."
 * Try adding more categories, such as Category:Sons of Byzantine emperors.
 * Try adding more categories, such as Category:Sons of Byzantine emperors.
 * Try adding more categories, such as Category:Sons of Byzantine emperors.
 * Thanks for taking the time; all issues should now be fixed! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)