Talk:Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)

message: Mightn't this page cause some confusion with Emperor Constantine III (r.641), the short-lived son of Heraclius? john 05:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, but there are two Constantine III, one eastern and one western. And he was not a usurper - for he was formally recognised as an emperor. John Norwich, in his Byzantine History, solves the problem by calling him "Constantius III", but why he, unlike the eleven other Constantines, should have his name treated differently, is an open question. Constantine II ruled only in Gaul and was certainly not a "Byzantine" emperor. I suggest Constantine III "west" and "east".Sponsianus 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Andre Engels has created a disambiguation page -- Constantine III -- to address this.  --llywrch 16:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Whether a ruler is a usurper or legitimate is defined by his success. Constantine III was ultimately suppressed and is generally known as a usurper. As it says in the article, Honorius only recognised him for one year (409) under constraint. I see no need to change the article on this account.
I haven't read the Norwich book yet. I cannot see any excuse for calling him "Constantius III" - "Constantius" is a completely different name. --Jmullaly (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I beg your pardon, when I wrote the above I'd forgotten a thing. Constantius III is not just a different name, he was a completely different person, second husband of Galla Placida who co-ruled with Honorius briefly in 421. --Jmullaly (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Constitutionaly, a Roman Emperor was considered legitimate when the ruling Augustus decreed him to be one - duress has nothing to do with it. Constantine III's name was recorded in the Fasti, legitimising him and his elevation. He also cannot be degraded from the rank of co-emperor just because Honorius turned against him in 410, otherwise we'd have to remove legitimate emperors such as Licinius, just because Constantine I turned against him. Constantine III is virtually unique amongst the usurpers for gaining this official recognition, and this is noted by the fact that he is called Constantine III, not simply Constantine. (Please note - just because there was a Byzantine Emperor called Constantine III who ruled in 641 is not an indication that this Constantine was considered illegitimate. What it reflects is that the Eastern and Western Empires after 395 are considered separate entities, and that both Constantines are the third in succession in that eastern or western imperial succession). Further, Jones and Martindale in the PLRE Vol. 2 identify him as a legitimate co-emperor. Oatley2112 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Have removed some Canduci here as well. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unreliable sources 

message: I think I read that the main dufference between Stlicho and his successors mightbhave been his experience as a general and a politician, whereas the others
were civilian "bureaucrats" ( or even Eunuchs risen to power ? ).
Can this be correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.220.24 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political players 

message: A long time ago I created this article, then walked away to other projects. So I was very surprised to see it on the Front Page! I do have some criticisms on its current state -- most of which I won't mention since I don't have the time to constructively discuss them -- but there is one point I feel should be raised: when I wrote this, I went into such detail (for the time) I worried that readers would think I invented the material, so I added two references at the end of the article. One persisted to this draft -- E.A. Thompson's article -- the other (which IMHO is the better of the two) did not: C.E. Stevens, "Marcus, Gratian, Constantine", Athenaeum, 35 (1957), pp. 316-47. Is there a reason Stevens' article was not used in this version? - llywrch (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi llywrch. Good to hear from you. I'm sorry that you don't like the article. Given that everything in the article is cited at least paragraph by paragraph and much of it sentence by sentence there is no need for overall references. I hope that no one thinks that a densely referenced FA may be made up. I cannot recall why Stevens went, but possibly because I would have struggled with a 76 year old source at FAC. There has been a lot of scholarship written or made available since November 2002 and the article needs to reflect this. Is there anything in the Stevens article which is not in the article and you think should be, or anything in the article where additionally citing to Stevens would enhance the article? Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Steven's article lays the foundation for what we know about this period, which would be apparent if read. But I'm more curious about how it fell out of this article, especially since for the first 10-12 years almost no one touched it. Yes, more research has passed on the subject -- Britannica the periodical published several articles on this period 10 years ago, IIRC -- but sometimes one should acknowledge how our understanding of a period developed. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Wikipedia. Articles sit for ages, then someone or someones become interested and work on them. I worked on this one five years ago and took it to GAN. Then, for no particular reason, I picked it up again earlier this year and took it to FAC. Re acknowledging how our understanding of a period developed, that sounds like material for an article on something like "Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire", which I think would be a good idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  22 years later