Talk:Constantine the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Constantine the Great has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Popular Myths about the Council of Nicea Re: Constantine's role[edit]

Unfortunately, due to many cultural influences (and outdated sources), many continue to promote the following ideas.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 [1] 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 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which orator[edit]

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

Strange sentence[edit]

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 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of somebody else[edit]

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, Wikipedia: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 (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.-- (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine or Roman emporer?[edit]

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 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image:Torino-portapalatina01.jpg does not have a free license and must be removed, or the license issue resolved. In my rendering, there is a giant white space at the end of the section "Maxentius' rebellion"—this should be dealt with. Consider using the "upright" syntax on portrait-aligned images.
  7. Overall:
    Fix the minor image problems and the article will pass by a farthing. Arsenikk (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed the image concerns. Is "[passing] by a farthing" a good or bad thing? It seems an awfully small denomination of coin to pass by. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Passed! To be quite honest, I mixed up a farthing and a league (don't ask why). So yes, it had a positive intention. As far as I can tell, this article is close to a featured quality, but I think the people down at FAC will claim it is a bit long. Consider using summary style on parts, such as "War against Maxentius", and others. Congratulations of an excellent piece of work. Arsenikk (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Constantine's Danubian campaigns[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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—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: [2] 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. [3] 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,[4] 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 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 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 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)


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):

A coin of Constantine (c.337) showing a depiction of his Labarum standard spearing a serpent.

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

Coin of Vetranio, the emperor is holding two labara. Interestingly they differ from the labarum of Constantine in having the Chi-Rho depicted on the cloth rather than above it, and in having their staffs decorated with phalerae as were earlier Roman military unit standards.

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

Interestingly, Eusebius (in the translation I'm reading: 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. (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence[edit]

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! ( (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 15 January 2009 steveg)

Merge of Death of Constantine[edit]

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[edit]

Some comments on my partial reverts and edits of Clinkophonist's edits:

  • 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.

Regards, Varana (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


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)


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. (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all the Maximins (and Maximinuses—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[edit]

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

Missorium depicting Constantius II on horseback with spear, preceded by a victory and accompanied by a guardsman.

Galerius' recognition of Constantine as emperor in 306[edit]

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?[edit]

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)? (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. (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is Constantine now?[edit]

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. (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman emperors were born on the territory of modern Serbia[edit]

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)

  • Pagan tomb and Christian tomb in Viminacium (Serbia)[5]
  • Christian church from the time of Constantine in Viminacium (Serbia)[6]

--Свифт (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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 (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 (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 [7]. Constantine's head in a Museum Belgrade [8].--Свифт (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous refrences to Constantine on Harold Camping's radio program, "Open Forum."[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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 IConstantine 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.  — 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"[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting problem[edit]

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 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

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[citation needed]." I don't know if it's true or false, but it has nothing to do with Constantine. (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased and clearly not an encyclopaedial article[edit]

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 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear, orderly succession after all[edit]

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.

Name Reign Comments
Constantine Musei Capitolini.jpg Constantine "the Great"
(Greek: Κωνσταντίνος Α' ο Μέγας, Latin: Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus)
19 September 324 –
22 May 337
Born on 27 February c. 280 as the son of the Augustus Constantius Chlorus. Proclaimed Augustus of the western empire upon the death of his father on 25 July 306 and later united the whole empire
ConstantiusII.jpg Constantius [II]
(Κωνστάντιος [Β'], Flavius Iulius Constantius)
22 May 337 –
5 October 361
Born on 7 August 317, the second son of Constantine I. Inherited Eastern third of Roman Empire upon his father's death, sole Roman Emperor from 351. Died of illness on campaign
Emperor Constans Louvre Ma1021.jpg Constans I
(Κώνστας Α', Flavius Iulius Constans)
22 May 337 –
Born c. 323, the third son of Constantine I. Inherited central third of Roman Empire upon his father's death, acquired the Balkans in 338. Assassinated during the revolt of Magnentius
JulianusII-antioch(360-363)-CNG.jpg Julian "the Apostate"
(Ιουλιανός "ο Παραβάτης", Flavius Claudius Iulianus)
5 October 361 –
28 June 363
Born in May 332, grandson of Constantius Chlorus and cousin of Constantius II. Proclaimed by his army in Gaul, became legitimate Emperor upon the death of Constantius. Killed on campaign against Sassanid Persia

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[edit]

The section "Character & Legacy" in and the section "Wars against Licinius" in 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[edit]

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. (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mislabelled? Constantine colossus image in introduction[edit]

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. -- (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)