Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos

Hello Ichthyovenator. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{U}}, {{ping}}, or {{re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The second concern was the religious disunity within what little remained of his empire; with much of the Byzantine populace refusing to accept a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, something Constantine and his predecessor John VIII had believed necessary to secure military aid from Catholic Europe. Everything after the semicolon sounds like an incomplete fragment, but from editing the article, everything after the semicolon elaborates on everything before it, rather than introducing a new idea? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Right now I've edited it to read: Constantine and his predecessor John VIII both believed a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was needed to secure military aid from Catholic Europe, but much of the Byzantine populace opposed the idea. Do you know if the sources say what the proportion of the population that opposed the union was? I'd like to use "majority" instead of "much" as it is more specific. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything on the exact proportion of the population opposing the church union; most sources simply make it clear that there was a significant number of vocal anti-unionists and enough of them to cause riots in the streets. There were probably more anti-unionists than unionists in Constantinople as the Byzantines had considered the Catholics heretics for almost four centuries (not helped by the events of the Fourth Crusade) but I have not found a source that confidently states this or a more exact estimate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because of a lack of contemporary sources, most writings of Constantine having been composed after his death, accounts of his life, before and after he eventually became emperor, are often heavily skewed, portraying his life with a view of his final fate, typically highly eulogizing in nature. This sentence tries to incorporate a lot of ideas but is confusing to read. Is the main idea of this sentence that accounts of his life are usually skewed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, most (if not all) written about him was written after his death defending Constantinople and since he essentially died a martyr much of it is quite possibly skewed in his favor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Reorganised sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The situation looked grim. I'm unsure of the addition of this sentence. It doesn't provide any encyclopedic knowledge and readers should be able to understand what the situation is like without being told as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this should probably be removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed sentence.

• As Manuel II had once hoped years ago, John too hoped to rally support from Western Europe. Which sentence should this go with: the one before or the one after it? With a little bit of tweaking it can be integrated into either. If John also had the motive of receiving Western Europe's support by giving the Republic of Venice the city of Thessaloniki, it can go with the previous sentence. If it's a separate matter, it can merge with the next sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The Thessaloniki business is just John, but both John and Manuel hoped to rally aid from the west (though Manuel eventually gave up on the church union stuff). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Merged sentence with the one after it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Manuel believed that an eventual church union, which would become John's goal, would only antagonize the Turks and the empire's populace, possibly even leading to civil war. I don't think there are any other important Manuels, so I think it should be safe to remove all instances of the regnal number after his first mention? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other Manuels in the article but they appear significantly later so yes, unless there would be some confusion removing the regnal number everywhere after his first mention should be fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Other Manuels are given brief mentions and are identified with different surnames or regnal numbers, so Manuel II being referred to as Manuel should be fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having been impressed by his brother during the 1422 Ottoman siege, and trusting him more than his other brothers, Constantine was given the title of despot and left to rule Constantinople as regent. Who was impressed by his brother? John? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, John. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because their brother Theodore expressed his discontent over his position as Despot of the Morea to John during the latter's visit in 1423, John soon recalled Constantine from Mesembria and designated him as Theodore's successor. Boldly edited, removed mention of John's visit to Venice as it didn't seem like an important detail to include. That's fine? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

All good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Theodore did not make way for Constantine or Thomas at Mystras. This sentence can be integrated with the next one. What does "make way" mean in this context? Theodore did not give his brothers the capital? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Means that Theodore did not want to share his capital with his brothers, yes (he wouldn't have had to give it up regardless but it seems he wanted it for himself). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "make way" to "share", and connected this sentence with the next one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The campaign, which was unsuccessful, possibly due to Theodore's reluctance to partake, was Thomas's first experience of war. The sentence as phrased sounds like it would be more appropriate on an article about Thomas as it's heavily weighted on him. What about this: The campaign ended in failure, possibly due to Theodore's reluctant participation and Thomas' inexperience? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I believe I took this sentence verbatim from my previous work on Thomas's article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to proposed sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Constantine and Sphrantzes, confident that the city's many Greek inhabitants would support their takeover, marched towards Patras on 1 March 1429 and on 20 March, he besieged the city. Who's "he"? Constantine? Sphrantzes? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this should have been made clear; the "he" here is Constantine. Sphrantzes was with him (but Constantine led the siege), so could be either "Constantine" or "they" here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Switched "he" to "they", and reorganised the sentence a little. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• On 1 June, Constantine returned to the city and, since the Archbishop had not returned, met with the city's leading men in the city's Cathedral of St. Andrew on 4 June and they accepted him as their new lord. Is there a reason why "leading men" was used and not "leaders"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No reason, "leaders" works better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Switched. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although many in the Byzantine Empire opposed a Union of the Churches [...] Is "Union of the Churches" the official name of the event? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be, so maybe it should not be capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Brought it back to lowercase. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• John brought a large delegation to Italy, including Joseph II, the Patriarch of Constantinople [...] Are Joseph II and the Patriarch of Constantinople the same person or separate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph II was the Patriarch of Constantinople. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I was originally hesitant to use semicolons as dividers for what I perceived to be one entity, but large numbers of bishops, monks and priests made it easier to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Turahan was sent south to take Mystras and devastate Constantine's lands while Murad II led his forces in the north of the Peloponnese. Were Murad's forces already in the north or did they travel to the north? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Murad led them to the north and then campaigned there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Other than Mehmed II, Orhan was the only known living male member of the Ottoman dynasty and he represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate. Was he himself a potential rival or did he represent someone else that was a potential rival? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Orhan was the only living male member of the Ottoman dynasty other than Mehmed himself, so he was a potential rival claimant to the Ottoman throne. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced "represented" with "was". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whether all the attendants agreed with the theology used might not have made much difference; it might simply have been comforting to be in a large crowd in the face of the imminent danger. I'm doubting the need for this sentence to be in the article as I don't see the encyclopedic value behind it. If it has to stay, wrap it in quotes? Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used for this. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, remove this bit. The idea behind including it was to explain why the anti-unionists would celebrate service together with the unionists but I agree that it is leaning towards unencyclopedic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. The sentence before it talks about the anti-unionist movement dying down, and the sentence before that has [...] united them in fear and panic (removed "common"), so mention of the unity between the two factions should be sufficient.

• If he had any fears about the impending battle, Constantine kept them to himself and instead, he prepared for the impending attack. Is this sentence necessary? Sounds better placed in a narrative.

No, it's not really necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to the limited western aid, the Ottoman pretender held as a hostage in the city, Orhan Çelebi, and his considerable retinue of Ottoman troops, also assisted in the city's defense. What does it mean by Orhan being an "Ottoman pretender"? I only remember him being described as "represented a potential rival claimant to the sultanate". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "pretender" isn't explicitly correct; he was just a possible contender for the Ottoman throne. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "pretender" to "contender". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mehmed ordered his admiral, Suleiman Baltoghlu, to capture the ships and their crews, or not return alive. Is this verbatim from the source? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to this source anymore but I would hope not, you could rephrase this if that is the concern. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "or not return alive" to "at all costs". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• [...] as such, Constantine's death also marked the final end of the Roman Empire [...] What's the difference between a "final end" and a "non-final" end? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

When the Roman Empire ended is debatable and depends on what you consider to be the Roman Empire. Many see the empire as ending with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476, others with the Islamic conquests of the Levant and northern Africa in the 7th century. 1453 is really as late as you can consider the Roman Empire to have endured without some mental gymnastics. Constantine XI was the last ruler of a sequence of emperors which went back unbroken to the first Roman emperor Augustus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed "final" to "definitive". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• [...] for instance "Michael the Drunkard". Original formatting preserved. What's with the underlining? Emphasis? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• [...] for instance "Constantine, son of Manuel" [...] Original formatting preserved. Same issue as above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

For both this one and the previous one, yes, emphasis was the intention here. The underlining is perhaps unnecessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The MoS discourages underlining for emphasis, so I've replaced them with italics. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Demetrios was granted the Constantine's former capital, Mystras, and authority over the southern and eastern parts of the despotate, while Thomas ruled Corinthia and the northwest, variously using Patras or Leontari as his capital. Thomas constantly alternated between the two as capital cities? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have alternated between the two. In these cases "capital" is used as a convenience; maybe "residence" would make more sense? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Partly done. I've changed it to read [...] while Thomas ruled Corinthia and the northwest, alternating between Patras and Leontari as his place of residence. This is assuming that only these places were his main residences. How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this works. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Throughout the long winter of 1452 and 1453, Constantine ordered the citizens of Constantinople, both men and women [...] Do "men and women" need to explicitly be stated? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no, felt that people might assume "citizens" is just men in this case otherwise but I'm fine with removing it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Question: There is the historical context of what a woman's duties were at that time, so I understand your rationale for doing so. Would women being called upon to support the war effort in those times be seen as "out of the ordinary"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to find decent info on this; women were involved in supporting roles during siege warfare in Ancient Greece (repairing walls, distributing supplies and getting involved in tactics), but that does not mean that this carried over into the Middle Ages two thousand or so years later. Women in Byzantium could inherit property, had legal standing and participated in politcal affairs (and some became absolute monarchs; Irene of Athens, Theodora III Porphyrogenita) but it is difficult to find stuff on their role in military matters. I think it would be strange if the women did not help out when their city was being besieged so perhaps it was not out of the ordinary, no. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. In that case the parenthetical thought "both men and women" will be removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the city's Genoese population also aided the Byzantines and notable Genoese aid came in the form of Giovanni Giustiniani, a renowned soldier known for his skill in siege warfare and arrived as a volunteer in January 1453, bringing 700 soldiers with him. The two (Genoese population and Giustiniani) are closely related but should be separated by sentence. Coming back to this later. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are closely related but I think that it is important to distinquish them too. Giustiniani was Genoese but came to the city on his own accord to help in its defense (he didn't help because he happened to live there). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Partly done. My current solution is to introduce Giustiniani in his own sentence. I think it's a little too wordy, but how does In January 1453, notable Genoese aid came arrived voluntarily in the form of Giovanni Giustiniani—a renowned soldier known for his skill in siege warfare—and 700 soldiers under his command look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Giustiniani was mortally wounded by a shot through the arm-hole of his cuirass. Is it an arrow shot? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at this there does not appear to be scholarly consensus that the arm-hole is the correct location (though I recall the source saying this) - he might have been shot in the arm, chest or even leg. Sources also seem to disagree on what kind of shot it was, most saying that he was hit by either a cannonball or a crossbow bolt (if arm-hole is kept, crossbow bolt would be the way to go). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Since the circumstances surrounding Giustiniani's mortal wound are ambiguous, how would removing the specifics sound? The sentence would read: Unbeknownst to anyone, after six hours of fighting, just before sunrise, Giustiniani was mortally wounded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• These plans were thwarted once Theodore changed his mind about the whole affair, but John still wished to place Constantine in the Morea. Were the plans thwarted, though? Constantine eventually became a co-despot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the plans succeeded eventually but if Theodore wouldn't have changed his mind Constantine would have become (sole) despot four years earlier. I agree that calling them "thwarted" is unnecessary, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Partly done. I've tried rewriting it as Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John still assigned Constantine to the Morea as a "co-despot". I might remove "co-despot" in a later revision and say something along the lines of [...] still assigned Constantine to the Morea as another despot to rule alongside him. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the current phrasing makes it seem that John assigned Constantine as despot in 1423 (before John's and Constantine's war against Epirus), maybe something like "Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John would eventually still ..." (a bit problematic in the same way, but maybe you see what I mean). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How's this look? Theodore eventually changed his mind, but John eventually assigned Constantine to the Morea as a despot in 1427 after the war against Epirus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Though Theodore was now happy to rule in the Morea, he could use some support as he had been beset by enemies throughout the 1420s. Is everything past the comma John's thoughts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't remember but it's probably the author of the source (Nicol) rationalizing John's actions, I don't think we know explicitly why John did anything. Maybe this could be changed to something like "... now happy to rule in the Morea, but the peninsula was repeatedly threatened throughout the 1420s" or something to that effect? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Switched out "now happy" with "content" in this edit.

Suggestion: That's one option. Alternatively, we could introduce the author of the source, Donald (?) Nicol, to attribute his thoughts. Something like: Though Theodore was content to rule in the Morea, historian Donald Nicol believes that the support was helpful, as the peninsula was repeatedly threatened by a foreign empire throughout the 1420s. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me too. "Foreign empire" wouldn't really be correct as the Morea was threatened by several enemies (Epirus, Venice, the Ottomans), out of which only one (Ottomans) are typically considered an empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, what about replacing "foreign empire" with "external forces"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• As before in Constantine's life, other things would get in the way and Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia. Any examples of "other things"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This bit might be completely unnecessary (or should specify better) but the big thing that got in the way was the impending Ottoman attack. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: In that case, what about Due to an impending Ottoman attack, Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia, if there were no other major significant reasons for Sphrantzes not returning to Georgia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The impending Ottoman attack is the one that resulted in the city's fall so I'm thinking that if it is explicitly indicated there must be some way of getting around introducing it in an overly detailed way before it really becomes relevant in the text (which is a lot later). I'm not aware of what any other reasons would be, the source indicated the impending battle. Sphrantzes was set to return to Georgia in the spring of 1452, Mehmed II began the construction of his European-side castle to be used for the attack in the spring of 1452. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the reason was the fear of an impending Ottoman attack, how about Due to mounting tensions with the Ottomans, Sphrantzes ultimately did not return to Georgia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• On 24 May, there was a lunar eclipse for three hours, harkening to a prophecy that Constantinople would fall when the moon was on wane. Did the prophecy use the words "was on wane", and if so, was it to describe a natural moon waning? Lunar eclipses are sometimes referred to as "blood moons", so they could still be seen in their entirety. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The prophecy seems to refer to a lunar eclipse/blood moon (after a quick round of googling), not just a normal wane (though I remember the source used here used "wane"). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

From my little research jaunt into that particular lunar eclipse, it appears that it was a partial lunar eclipse, which would make it appear as if part of the moon was missing. This excerpt from what the site claims to be the diary of Nicolo Barbaro claims:^[1]

On this same day, the twenty-second of May, at the first hour of the night, there appeared a wonderful sign in the sky, which was to tell Constantine the worthy Emperor of Constantinople that his proud empire was about to come to an end, as it did. The sign was of this form and condition: at the first hour after sunset the moon rose, being at this time at the full, so that it should have risen in the form of a complete circle; but it rose as if it were no more than a three-day moon, with only a little of it showing, although the air was clear and unclouded, pure as crystal. The moon stayed in this form for about four hours, and gradually increased to a full circle, so that at the sixth hour of the night it was fully formed. When we Christians and the pagans had seen this marvelous sign, the Emperor of Constantinople was greatly afraid of it, and so were all his nobles, because the Greeks had a prophecy which said that Constantinople would never fall until the full moon should give a sign, and this was the reason for the fear which the Greeks felt. But the Turks made great festivity in their camp for joy at the sign, because they believed that now victory was in their hands, as in truth it was.

So it seems that the moon disappeared for a bit before reappearing on the same night which would definitely freak people out. I'd like to use some of the exact wording from the source, but I'm not sure if that is what was truly written in Barbaro's account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I'll leave this for the requester for interest.

Hope to read your replies soon! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for taking the time to go through this massive article! I've replied to your questions :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Thanks for the replies! Many of the questions I had have been addressed and struck out. Others have further inquiries or suggestions. I also happened to forget one comment I marked down in my preliminary pass: I've marked that one with a . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Another round of replies 👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: More replies and we're whittling these down 👍. I think you might find the source I found interesting as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Hope you're doing well. I think I've done all I can here, so I'll consider the request complete. If you have anything further you wish to discuss about this article feel free to ping me on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Sorry for not replying yesterday, I'm vacationing and internet access has been a bit sporadic. I'll read through this article once I'm back home in a few days! Thank you again for taking the time to go through this :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ConstantinoXI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "His opinions got invalided later by the Catholic Church." from the note on the religion parameter of the infobox, it's vandalism that was added by Gurylondonic 2804:14C:55:8D94:A4D7:EC78:2E76:7B32 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the lead so long? A lot of background stuff, needs cleanup. Beshogur (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Giannisistorikos (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to add content that this page probably  doesn't have

Giannisistorikos Giannisistorikos (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok Giannisistorikos (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Giannisistorikos (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to add content that this page probably doesn't have

Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:

• The Amendments sections are exceedingly long as well as redundant, considering that List of amendments to the United States Constitution covers the same ground. This main article also links with separate articles on each of the Constitution’s amendments.
• Judicial Review is another long section that has a main article, Judicial review in the United States.

Both of the above could be reduced to their essence with links provided to the main articles. I’d appreciate feedback to see if we can reach a consensus on these suggestions. Allreet (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What does this page have to do with the United States Constitution? Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

After Constantine XI’s demise in 1453, there is only the one Roman emperor left in the western side which is HRE Frederick III. Should Frederick III be the successor of Emperor Constantine XI? because he descended from Emperor Theodore I Laskaris through his daughter Maria Laskarina, wife of Belá IV of Hungary. IMPERATORMANYU (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source would describe the geopolitical situation that way. We only allow claims on Wikipedia that are verifiable in reliable sources; what you've presented instead is your own original research based on synthesizing various things you've read. Citations to reliable sources explicitly making such claims are required. Furthermore, what we include is based on balancing what all the reliable sources say, so this would not be due in the article regardless, since most sources do not say it. Remsense诉 05:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Snowstormfigorion, I believed that Tintero21's version of the main image, which ILoveHirasawaYui had added recently, was in fact a little better for the infobox. It was slightly cropped and the colors were slightly saturated, making the picture look more vivid, compared to the paler colors of the original photograph. A degree of editing is in fact pretty common for WP images, whether it's cropping, resolution increase, color adjustment etc. Piccco (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not alter the image any further until there is community consensus toward a particular image or version of said image, such as through an WP:RFC; personally, I don't think the altercations in the image are necessary, but let's wait until a wider editorial opinion is concluded. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, I didn't make any changes, that's why I opened this discussion. Funnily, I was initially going to revert ILoveHirasawaYui's edit too, but upon a second thought, it appeared to me that this one version was in fact better for the infobox for the reasons I explained above. Piccco (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it because it's been a while and no one else has contested the edited image. Also, to defend the edited version, one of my favourite things about it is that it restores his cloak to the purple colour that the artist intended. The colour purple was symbolic of emperors, so I think it is an important detail. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Again and as per the above, please do not make further changes to the infobox image without editorial consensus; as instructed above, you're welcome to open a WP:RFC or seek other means of consensus as illustrated by WP:CON. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that's what you meant by consensus 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui: please do not change the article and/or image from the status quo until the RFC is concluded; see WP:RFCCLOSE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I didn't notice that you arbitrarily chose to close the RFC and remove the latter's template without valid reasoning and against WP:RFC's directives. I've restored the template; as per the latter's requisites, the template will automatically be removed after 30 days, do not remove it before then. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

ILoveHirasawaYui, the RFC, with two votes for the original image, two for the edited, and one for a third option, stands at a no consensus. However, you can restart it if you like as per WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No! You keep insisting I make these RfCs, while making sure that your preferred picture is the one that's on the article while the RfC is on. That's just a sneaky way of getting what you want, even though you don't have the community consensus for it. I think, since I did it last time, you're the one who should make an RfC this time if you don't like the image. And the edited image should stay while this RfC is ongoing. That's only fair. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You're not listening. I advise you to read WP:CON, carefully. You're the one attempting the change, the burden of consensus is on you. As said above, the RFC concluded in a no consensus, you're welcome to restart it or seek other consensus-building methods; this is your final warning. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not scared of your threats. I know you can't actually ban me because you're not an admin. I already won; the burden of consensus is now on you since you're the one who wants to make a change. So stop edit warring and go seek consensus. If you revert my edit again you will be banned. This is your final warning. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui, @Snowstormfigorion: Both of you should stop before you gain yourself an interaction ban between each other... or even a temporary block on the article. Go to the RfC and talk about the article instead of making baseless threats. If you both are still having issues on the article's content, you are free to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard to beef it out there. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright fine. I wasn't serious about those threats or saying "I already won". But that was still rude and stupid of me to do. I'm gonna be serious now and take this to WP:DRN 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I personally wouldn't recommend it as of now because you have an RfC open about the topic already. Let the RfC run its course first and if you are still getting into fight afterwards than you should go. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The RfC already expired. @Snowstormfigorion was suggesting I reopen it for another month, all while his version of the image stays on the article. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, I actually agree with User:SMcCandlish that the image would look better if the editing was more subtle. So I made a version that has the exact same cropping, but is a blend of the original and the edited versions. What do you all think @AirshipJungleman29, Wjtprince, Piccco, Snowstormfigorion, SMcCandlish, and Cowboygilbert:💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with SMcCandlish and I think this option looks good too. Indeed, more subtle editing and slightly cropped. Piccco (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We now have two votes for the original image and three for this less edited one, so I'm gonna go ahead and add it 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I also like the "in-between" version. It is clearer than the original, and within the bound of image cleanup, but doesn't distort the colors and contrast to look like a modern work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As it was

Tintero21's edit

In between

The current entry listing Constantine XI as “Eastern Catholic, previously Eastern Orthodox” is incorrect and unsupported by evidence. All reliable sources point to him remaining Eastern Orthodox, even until death. George Sphrantzes, a contemporary, describes his last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (Sphrantzes, G. (1980). The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, p. 141), a clear Orthodox practice. The 1450 synod under Constantine elected an anti-unionist Patriarch, and George-Gennadios Scholarios’ 1450 letter shows no sign of conversion (Sanidopoulos, J. (2020). “Was Emperor Constantine Palaiologos a Uniate?” Mystagogy Resource Center). His support for the 1439 Council of Florence was political, not personal. I’ve tried correcting this, but editors have reverted, citing “consensus” without providing sources for the Eastern Catholic claim. This resistance seems based on procedural reasons rather than evidence, which is unfair when the sources clearly support Eastern Orthodox. Can we update the page to reflect the evidence, or can editors provide sources for “Eastern Catholic”? Happy to discuss! Charalambus (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The source in the article is this book by Donald Nicol. He says "Yet there is no evidence that he ever repudiated the union of Florence. He too died in communion with the church of Rome, a catholicus zelator as a German poet of the fifteenth century described him." Obviously one German poet is very weak evidence, but other historians agree. Marios Philippides says here that "Constantinople was a divided city. Two political parties were formed: the unionists, headed by the Palaeologi and other Greeks, and the antiunionists". Roger Crowley says here, apparently quoting someone else, that Constantine was there on 12 December 1452 when the union was celebrated. Not to mention that, the night before he died, he received communion from a Catholic cardinal, Isidore of Kiev. Maybe he didn't personally believe in Catholicism and only supported the union for political reasons, but then again many people converted to Islam for their careers while continuing to privately believe in Christianity, and we don't call them Christians.

I'm Orthodox myself, so I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox, but I've searched through many academic sources and I can't find one that says, or even speculates, that he did. If you can find a legitimate source (not this blog) saying that he may have died Orthodox, I would be happy to change the article to reflect that. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"he received communion from a Catholic cardinal, Isidore of Kiev" Isidore of Kiev was also one of the main supporters of Constantine during the siege of Constantinople, and he managed to flee the Ottomans by faking his death. Per the main article on him: "Before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, he subsidized the repair of fortifications at his own expense and was wounded in the early hours of the sack. He managed to escape the carnage by dressing up a dead body in his cardinal's robes. While the Turks were cutting off its head and parading it through the streets, the real cardinal was shipped off to Asia Minor with a number of insignificant prisoners as a slave, and later found safety in Crete. He composed a series of letters describing the events of the siege.^[1] He warned of the danger of further expansion of the Turks in the multiple letters and even seems to be the earliest eyewitness to have compared Mehmed II with Alexander the Great.^[2][3]" Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and sources. I appreciate your effort to ground this discussion in evidence.

Regarding your sources, Donald Nicol’s The Immortal Emperor (1992) notes Constantine XI died in communion with Rome, citing a German poet’s “catholicus zelator” description, which is weak evidence. Marios Philippides’ The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (1980) and Roger Crowley’s Constantinople: The Last Great Siege 1453 (2005) highlight his unionist actions, like attending the December 12, 1452, service and receiving communion from Cardinal Isidore. However, these reflect political necessity, not personal belief, as you acknowledged.

I propose that Constantine likely remained Eastern Orthodox, based on primary sources. George Sphrantzes, his confidant, describes his last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, 1980, p. 141), a distinctly Orthodox term. Sphrantzes, an anti-unionist Orthodox Christian, would not use such language for a Catholic rite. Additionally, George-Gennadios Scholarios’ 1450 letter shows no hostility toward Constantine, suggesting he wasn’t seen as Uniate. The 1450 synod, overseen by Constantine, elected anti-unionist Patriarch Athanasios, further aligning him with Orthodoxy.

I find the remark “I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox” taunting, as it dismisses my evidence without engagement. I’ve cited Sphrantzes’ Chronicle, a primary source, not the Sanidopoulos blog, to meet the request for legitimate sources.

I suggest revising the article to state: “Constantine XI supported the 1439 Council of Florence politically but likely remained Eastern Orthodox personally, as evidenced by Sphrantzes’ account and contemporary Orthodox relations.” This balances the evidence. Can you provide sources explicitly confirming his personal conversion to Eastern Catholicism? I’m open to further discussion. Charalambus (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you use ChatGPT to write that response for you? I'm happy to have a respectful discussion, but if you just use AI to respond to me I'm not going to waste my time writing out another response.

Sphrantzes and Gennadios are both WP:PRIMARY sources. You can't just rely on your interpretation of them, you need to cite WP:SECONDARY sources such as modern historians. And I don't see why Sphrantzes couldn't have described an Eastern Catholic Eucharist as "immaculate and divine". The Orthodox still believe that the Catholic Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and vice versa. As for the 1450 letter and synod, that was before Constantine celebrated the union on 12 December 1452. Neither of them are evidence that he remained Eastern Orthodox his whole life.

Since you want to make a change, the burden of proof is on you. You need to find a reliable secondary source supporting your claims.

Also, when I said "I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox", my intention wasn't to taunt you or dismiss your claim at all. I meant "I hope you're right, but I can't find any evidence". I'm not sure how you interpreted that as taunting. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't use ChatGPT, I used Grok. Nonetheless, you mentioned something as if I quoted a blog which I didn't, in that same finishing line, hence why it's easy to take offence at that sort of response. Primary sources are good, secondary sources might be good, but not if they are biased. What I mentioned was the bias of the PRIMARY sources and the fact that the Orthodox after schism do NOT consider the eucharist of the Catholics neither as immaculate nor divine, so calling it as such, as a anti-unionist primary source would be absurd. In fact I personally consider the Catholic communion a dead eucharist, and in no way commune nor condone it. I believe this to be the stance of my church as well. I'm open to listening to otherwise from current Church fathers.

On the topic of me needing to find a secondary source to prove my point: A single historian's (biased) interpretation (in this case a catholic background) of a primary source with more than a century difference is as good as any interpretation, and it is as good as my interpretation, of the events. Although, at this time the evidence I found is that the litourgy in Hagia Sophia the night before the fall was led by a Catholic bishop, and so, because I don't (as a member of the church) consider the communion of the catholics immaculate or divine, I refrain from making further arguement on this until I find more evidence that he did have a final Orthodox communion. As you and the A.i. like to claim, a communion with the catholics does not mean that he had a personal conversion, well, you go further to claim that it does mean that, but at the same time, say that we, orthodox, consider the catholic communion as valid. So, in this way we are stuck in a conundrum. You think that catholic communion is valid to the orthodox but you go further to claim that he had a personal conversion (with no evidence other than communing a catholic eucharist - to me - and for you, that he politically pushed for a union, that does not signal a personal conversion); the Ai thinks that he has not personally converted so he has remained Eastern Orthodox; and I affirm, that the communion of the catholics is not accepted as valid by the Church, and we are not to commune with them, hence if the Last Roman emperor has received a final communion in the Catholic terms, he could be considered in communion with heretics and outside of the body of the church, although still not a personal conversion (by your standards), but a bad string of unfortunate events that lead ultimately to the fall of The City... and the sacrifice of the Emperor.

That said, if his last communion was indeed catholic, and I have no other evidence of the contrary, I do not mind ceasing this debate at the current time. But your arguement that we orthodox accept the catholic eucharist, makes me think that it is according to your opinion on the matter again, that the single evidence, do not show a personal conversion, and that he remained Orthodox his entire life. I cannot, although, in good conscience, press on this matter because I consider it false (that we Orthodox consider the Catholic communion valid). Charalambus (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The current entry listing Constantine XI as “Eastern Catholic, previously Eastern Orthodox” is incorrect and unsupported by evidence. All reliable sources point to him remaining Eastern Orthodox, even until his death in 1453. This needs to be cited or changed. While he and his predecessor, John VIII, believed a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was necessary to secure military aid from Catholic Europe, neither ever converted. Hazythundermc (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

How about the source cited directly to the statement, that you happily removed alongside it? Remsense ‥ 论 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

there, happy now? Hazythundermc (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Whether you were trying to spite me there or thought that was actually what I wanted somehow, you need to stop putting your uninformed edits back immediately, and you need to stop ignoring signs that articles may be how they are for good reasons you don't yet know about. You're wrong that there's "no evidence", and there's an inline citation if you actually care to learn more. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I have noticed that this issue comes back from the dead several times lately , , , etc. Do we have any other sources that support the particular issue, i.e., Constantine was an Eastern Catholic? I read Nicols book, but I found it rather convoluted. Essentially, the author states in the particular page that just because we do not have evidence of Constantine refuting the "union of Florence" (about the union of the churches, which prevented his coronation but not as far I know baptizing emperors) is thus not an Orthodox Christian (still reading the book, e.g., on the last days he asked for forgiveness in Hagia Sofia etc). This is not a good argument that he is an eastern catholic. Constantine had a gun on his head (the Turks) and he would say/do anything to get the help from Western states. This is not necessarily reflective of his beliefs. After all the guy gave his life to protect the city, the very center of Christian Orthodoxy, which is why he is high esteem by the Orthodox Church. I hope you see the difference and the source of the conflict. Perhaps we could have an explanatory note to better describe this issue. Though we need more sources to make this work. Hopefully, this could stop people revert this. Just a thought. A.Cython (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I added the note. It is not perfect, but makes sense. Let's hope that this would resolve the issue. A.Cython (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Since Constantine XI was part of the Greek Orthodox Church and he neither repudiate the Greek Orthodox Church nor did the Greek Orthodox Church ex-communicated him, the case of him becoming an Eastern Catholic is not very strong. Nxavar (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If Constantine XI died in communion with Rome, then he died an Eastern Catholic. All the evidence presented only appears to confirm that indeed he was an EC uniate. It is a political distinction. It doesn't matter why he was in communion with Rome, nor is Wikipedia the place for wild speculation about a historical figure's inner spiritual beliefs and motivations. Inqvisitor (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support your opinion. If not then all did was provide a speculation based on your WP:POV.

1. Theologically speaking, communion without baptism does not count. This is why even today to have communion you need to go through baptism first.
2. The sources are not saying for certain that he had communion by a Catholic priest. This is because of the unreliability of the primary sources.
3. Given that there is considerable nuances on this topic an explanatory note serves to explain the literature more faithfully. Removing this note without good reason, i.e., providing sources, is construed as non-constructive behavior.
4. The agreement was effective nullified because the Latins did not hold their part of the agreement, i.e., ensure that Constantinople not fall on the hands of the Ottomans. But also there was no time for the Byzantines to do anything about it as they were frantically focusing on the defenses of the city. Given that Byzantine Empire does not exist and Orthodox Church is still independent, this agreement was voided. A.Cython (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You already conceded that Constantine XI was in communion with Rome, hence an Eastern Catholic uniate, both here on this talk page and in that partisan POV-pushing note—wherein you argue against the evidence, in a dispute of your own creation, needlessly complicating and confusing the topic for readers—the opposite of what an explanatory note is supposed to do.

You write that: “he could not receive the traditional coronation, as this would force him publicly to defend Orthodoxy, nullifying the agreement with Catholic states…In the final days, Constantine presumably received communion from a Catholic priest…” According to your own information, Constantine XI was such a committed Eastern Catholic that he would not publicly defend Orthodoxy even at the expense of his own coronation, and he took his final communion from a Catholic priest, not Orthodox. So he was an Eastern Catholic. Case closed.

You have speculated with theories as to why, e.g. you claim “Constantine had a gun on his head (the Turks) and he would say/do anything to get the help from Western states”—but regardless, it is not even really up for dispute that Constantine was, in fact, Eastern Catholic. The evidence is so overwhelming that you're forced to argue against the sourced facts that you yourself concede, trying to explain it away with personal opinions about baptism or whatnot. It seems you're not even trying to be a NPOV contributor but instead seeking to push a particular POV driven by emotion, and will find any way to arrive at a desired conclusion. But this is an encyclopedia which is supposed to present unbiased information from a neutral POV, based on facts and sources (independent of what Wikipedia editors think), not a place for editors to insert their own sectarian religious views—trying to rewrite history to make it fit biased modern narratives. Your argument would perhaps befit a theology debate forum; but definitely not an encyclopedia article. Inqvisitor (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

First, I would suggest to tone down. Second, do you have sources to share to help us improve, yes or no. Second, the explanatory note serves to explain the complex situation as it is not as clear cut as you express. You imply that having a communion immediately signal a change of faith. This is not the same thing based on the sources provided. The explanatory note does mention explicitly state that had communion from a Catholic priest, so there is no advancing WP:POV pushing. So I will ask you again do you have sources to help us improve, because otherwise all I keep hearing is a personal opinion. A.Cython (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Also note that on of the sources noted that the primary sources of that time are questionable meaning that whether he indeed had communion is not something that we are certain. Clearly this is not a clear cut case as you presented. A.Cython (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. There was a continual back and forth before the explanatory note. One side said Orthodox and the other Eastern Catholic. I commented above that this was not a clear cut case because of the political dimension. Then I spend several hours to understand where the literature stands on the issue and what the authors mean and so I wrote the particular explanation. Is it perfect, well who knows, but it provides necessary context to better understand what happened.

Nicol simply said that he had communion, but at the infobox we say that he changed religion. These two things are not the same thing. I can go tomorrow and sneak into a Catholic Church and have communion, now have I changed my faith? The source that provided says that to change religion requires the theological ceremony of baptism. So yes maybe he had communion but it does not automatically mean he changed faith due to no evidence of baptism. If you have sources to challenge this, please share here so that we make a more informative explanation. A.Cython (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Being in communion with Rome would make Constantine XI an Eastern Catholic. Eastern Orthodox who reenter communion with the Western Church become Eastern Catholic. That's what an EC uniate is. An Eastern Catholic believes essentially all the same things as Eastern Orthodox (which, FTR, includes sharing the same Nicene Christian doctrine “one baptism for the remission of sins”); the EO/EC distinction is determined by communion with Rome and the Western Church—to which Constantine XI was clearly committed, according to all academic sources.

The only people who even question his EC status appear to be modern-day EO extremists motivated by personal feelings and sectarian bias. Wikipedia articles about historical figures cannot be subject to the whims of religious zealots who are not at all interested in maintaining WP:NPOV standards of an encyclopedia. I note you have not even attempted to defend your edits as being WP:IMPARTIAL NPOV, instead trying to drag me down into your own sectarian theology debate, when Wikipedia is not the place for that. No editors should be injecting their own partisan POV arguments into an article, as your misleading “explanatory note” does (attempting to explain away what the actual sourced facts say…) Inqvisitor (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several assumptions on your opinion. For example, communion means automatically change of faith. Only baptism constitute this change, not communion theologically speaking. Do you have any sources to back them your claims? This is the third time I am asking. If we do not read these sources, all you do is expressing your opinion. A.Cython (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Communion in this case refers to Eastern Christians accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Western Church—the union of churches, as Constantine XI tried to implement (unto his death, according to even your own sources). Accepting the authority of the Pope is what distinguishes an Eastern Catholic from Eastern Orthodox. It's nothing to do with baptism. As aforesaid, both Catholic and Orthodox accept the same one baptism of Nicene Christianity. EO and EC perform the same rites and liturgies. 23 Eastern Rites of Catholicism to this day perform virtually the exact same rituals as EO. You don't get rebaptized if you change from EO to EC, reentering communion with another patriarchate—which is primarily about ecclesial structure, political unity, and authority. Inqvisitor (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, do you have sources to confirm this? Yes or no? If not you are just wasting everyone's time. I strongly encourage you to provide these sources (book title, page numbers, etc) now or you will be reverted again. A.Cython (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The question is not about the union of the churches but whether Palaiologos actually did had communion with a catholic priest. Again even if he did this is constitute a change of faith. There are no clear cut answers on this as the validity of the primary sources is questioned. For example,

• The Fall of Constantinople 1453 by Steven Runciman 1965 p.131 does not explicitly state that he did

Priests who held union with Rome to be a mortal sin now came to the altar to serve with their Unionist brothers. The Cardinal was there, and beside him bishops who would never acknowledge his authority; and all the people came to make confession and take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it. There were Italians and Catalans along with the Greeks. The golden mosaics, studded with the images of Christ and His Saints and the Emperors and Empresses of Byzantium, glimmered in the light of a thousand lamps and candles; and beneath them for the last time the priests in their splendid vestments moved in the solemn rhythm of the Liturgy. At this moment there was union in the Church of Constantinople.
When the Emperor's Council was dismissed the ministers and commanders rode through the city to join in the worship. After confessing and taking communion each then went to his station, resolved to conquer or to die. Why would he fail explicitly mention that the emperor had communion with a Catholic priest?

• Philippides, M., 2018. Constantine XI Dragaš Palaeologus (1404–1453): the last emperor of Byzantium. Routledge. p.307

If we are to believe some testimonies, the emperor, his lieutenants, and members of the court had visited the church of Santa Sophia earlier that evening and had attended the last Christian celebration, a joined Catholic mass and Orthodox liturgy. After services Constantine returned to his palace, addressed his Venetian and Genoese allies and comrades in arms, and urged them to be brave, since they all knew that the assault was about to begin. [...] Yet the historian may inquire as to their accuracy. Was there in fact a last celebration attended by the emperor, the Catholics, and the Orthodox in Santa Sophia? Did the emperor actually address his Constantinopolitan and Italian barons in his palace before the general assault? Was there really an opportunity for such speeches? Aside from Leonardo, who has a flair for the dramatic, other eyewitnesses fail to mention such touching scenes. There is every reason to conclude that Leonardo has provided his own free embellishment of the situation. The speech that he reports and attributes to the emperor may be the bishop’s own invention and his personal effort to color and flavor, with additional pathos and dignity, his narrative that is about to reach its climactic point. Leonardo is paraphrased by Pseudo-Sphrantzes,22 who produces an even longer speech through mere rhetorical amplificatio.23 The chances are that, in the hours preceding the general assault, there was no time for a celebration in Santa Sophia, at least as far as the active defenders were concerned. Such services for commanders and troops must have been held, if they took place at all, in the vicinity of the walls, where the main attack was expected, perhaps in the church of Saint Savior in Khora (present day Kariye Camii), which had been functioning as the imperial chapel for a number of years prior to the siege. It is inconceivable that the emperor and all his important commanders, native, Venetian, and Genoese, left their posts, moved in a procession all the way from the western critical sector in the Sulu Kule area already under direct attack to Santa Sophia by the Golden Horn, then made their way to the “palace,” where Constantine delivered a leisurely speech and only then, after this long absence from the walls, did they take their assigned places on the fortifications, just moments before the commencement of hostilities. The plain fact is that Constantine had abandoned his imperial quarters at the palace, which had been turned over to the Venetian bailo, and his troops during most of the siege. If understand correct Nicol's statement is based on an anonymous medieval German poet, which is hardly solid historical evidence. Evidently, scholarship (secondary sources presented above) show that this is not as clear cut and it is appreciated to keep it WP:CIVIL. Now, this does not mean that this is end of the story, I lost counting on how many times I asked for sources, but you need to provide sources to assess your position and we make the appropriate changes. A.Cython (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No original research WP:NOR… That goes even for real good faith research. But especially given that you are apparently digging through sources trying to draw out false conclusions from material that doesn't even say what you claim, to try to piece together your own argument, when your own argument doesn't belong in an WP:IMPARTIAL Wiki article describing facts in the first place…

FYI the fact that Constantine XI Palaiologos was an Eastern Catholic uniate in communion with the Western Church (as per historical consensus) is indeed about the union of churches. That's what being in communion means. Constantine XI was committed to keeping Constantinople in communion with Rome.

It is not about the sacrament of the Eucharist which is sometimes called 'Holy Communion'. I don't know if it's an honest language issue or if you're playing disingenuous word games, but that is not what communion means in this context. Speculating about his personal faith is futile. More over, again: EO and EC believe virtually the same faith, and practice almost the exact same liturgical rites in the same languages. The only clear distinguishing feature is that Eastern Orthodox are in schism from Rome and the Western Church, whereas Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome and the Western Church (historically sometimes called uniates). Constantine XI died committed to said union, hence he is called Eastern Catholic. Inqvisitor (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You still refuse to provide sources. I presented quotes that even dispute whether the communion even happen. Again, noone is disputing whether he tried to save Constantinople by accepting this union for political reasons, but primary sources are in question whether even he took communion thus we need to be cautious in how we present his faith and so what was his personal faith/religion is a different question. This was the whole point of the explanatory note to give context based on WP:RS. Given that I have asked multiple times to provide sources, it means that you do not have any and you only advance WP:POV by continuously speculating. Again do you have any sources? A.Cython (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Does it even make sense to speak of somebody being an "Eastern Catholic" before any organized Eastern Catholic churches and communities existed as they do today? It seems quite counter-intuitive to me – quite independently of the question of whether this person individually accepted or practiced union with Rome. The all-important question here is: do reliable sources ever do this? i.e.: Is any of our sources actually calling him an "Eastern Catholic"? I don't see any of them doing that in what is quoted in the discussion above. Some are calling him a "unionist", apparently, but that's clearly not the same thing. The conclusion that being a "unionist" automatically qualifies him as an "Eastern Catholic" avant la lettre seems to be a classic case of "original research".

Unfortunately, the extra note in the infobox currently being edit-warred over (as in this version), arguing as it does about how he was actually not an Eastern Catholic, is no less "original research" than the contrary position, or even more so. That whole argument clearly seems to have been created as such exclusively for Wikipedia. People, we don't do that kind of argument in Wikipedia. Now, A.Cython will of course already know the solution I'm about to propose next: If your infobox offends thee, cut it out and cast it off thee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If this policy solves future edit warring, so be it, but I doubt it since at some point someone with add it and the cycle continues. I only added the explanatory note to provide context as faithfully as possible to the literature. I do not see this as WP:POV since it articulates what secondary authors actually say and tried to be inclusive of both sides. As I said when I added the note, it is not perfect and by constructive editing it could improved further. However, there is some wisdom on the If your infobox offends thee, cut it out and cast it off thee since there won't be any improvement so long people resort to disruptive behavior to advance particular WP:POV without WP:RS and so it better not to have anything for them to disrupt. Thus, go ahead and remove it from the infobox. I am done with this article. A.Cython (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise One last note, I object on the characterization that I tried to say he was actually not an Eastern Catholic. I preserved the original source by one side and then provided a WP:RS that questions whether the communion even happened. This was directly related to the communion aspect of it as a historical event irrespective of religious faith. Did it happen or not? How on earth people write article here in WP? The rest of the statements were provided to capture the complexity (motivations etc) of the particular issue to be helpful to the reader. I understand you want to look fair to both sides, but sometimes not all sides are equally wrong, some of us provide sources/evidence. Enjoy the rest of the day. A.Cython (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I still struggle to understand. If by Future Perfect at Sunrise's logic, Constantine was not Eastern Catholic, then the only thing that remains is the he was Christian Orthodox, just as I had with an explanatory note that provided context and covering the various nuances. However, since the explanatory note is also an issue (providing evidence offends people) then we just remove the explanatory note. No the policy is to remove everything, implying that he was an atheist or a Muslim based on infobox information alone. Great, how is this not a WP:POV? No need to reply, I was just thinking aloud and I apologize in advance if this places people in uncomfortable positions. A.Cython (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Where is it? I have heard very conflicting facts. ~2026-54542-2 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)