Talk:Constantine the Great

augustus or Augustus

In the "In the West" section there is a bit of an inconsistency as to whether the title A/augustus should be capitalised. The text says " support for raising Constantine to the rank of full augustus" and later "proclaimed Constantine as augustus" as well as one further useage. However the caption of the image next to this text says of the statue in York it is "near the spot where he was proclaimed Augustus in 306". Thus should these be standardised to either Augustus or augustus? Dunarc (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Heather

I'm no late antiquity scholar, but I'm curious if Peter Heather's interpretation of Constantine expressed in his recent Christendom: The Triumph of a Religion, AD 300–1300 would be due a mention in the article. Essentially, Heather sees it most likely that Constantine had always been a Christian (or at least had been well before 312) and what we see in the timeline of events is his "coming out" as a Christian in stages as it became politically safe for him to do so in an overwhelmingly pagan empire. Personally, I find this significantly more compelling than the notion that he simply wasn't bright enough to realize he couldn't be both at once for nearly a decade—but I don't know how well-trodden this interpretation is, or how fringe it seems. Heather points to the later narrative of Julian converting the other way and practising in secret for an extended period to illustrate why this is plausible. Remsense诉 09:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Heather is an RS so it would be OK to cover his views. However, there was nothing unusual about practising both Christianity and paganism. Syncretism was normal in the Roman world and it is wrong to describe it as stupid because it is condemned by Christian theologians. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course; my understanding is there was always a broad gamut of syncretism in late antiquity—however, I've tried to remind myself there has always been some exclusivist backbone to Christian theology at least among the social elite—that is to say, of course people at all levels of society run the gamut, but the weighting is such that it strains credulity a hair for me to think that a person in Constantine's position would not have found it rather egregious to freely juxtapose Christ, Sol Invictus, and Apollo.

Of course nobody knows for sure, but that's what I like so much about Heather's argument: it feels fresh and common sense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'll see what I can do about writing up a quick sentence or two: I don't want to further stuff this article, it's already probably a bit long. Remsense诉 13:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism should be added as well

he is venerated in the latin-rite roman catholic church, not just the eastern rite roman catholic church:

https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731 Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"Constantinian shift" and "‘caesaropapism’ in lede

Removing the "Constantinian shift". Even its own article says there has been doubts whether such shift occurred.

Whether Constantine can be described with "caesaropapism" is debated: see Pohlsander's The Emperor Constantine, Lieu and Montserrat's Constantine: History, historiography and legend. I suggest this sentence be put in "Assessment and legacy" section, rather than the lede which should contain more definitive information. Soidling (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you have doubts about the "Constantinian shift" that you removed but you added the "Caesaropapism", both must be cited according to which author is this or that idea. In this case both need to be necessarily attributed. For example "According to Pohlsander Constantine's government was Caesaropapism" JasterOmega (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Constantinian shift" is linked in the further information of the Religious policy section. I would argue this is enough, and better than keeping a contentious information in the lede.

As you suggested, I have added further citation regarding debates about the "Caesaropapism", though Pohlsander himself is actually against the describing Constantine as one. Soidling (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I also searched for "Constantinian shift" in Google Book previews of Constantine's scholarly biographies (Ramsay MacMullen, Timothy Barnes, Hans Pohlsander, Lieu & Montserrat, and David Potter) and found no result. Since it is not a widely used nor a unanimously accepted term, I don't see why it should be in this article. Soidling (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Update the ethnic origin of Constantine the Great and his father Constantius Chlorus to reflect Thraco-Roman ancestry, based on primary source evidence from Emperor Julian.

There is substantial primary source evidence supporting that Constantine the Great and his father Constantius Chlorus were of Thraco-Moesian more precisely, Thraco-Roman origin. This classification is supported by direct testimony from their own familial lineage, as recorded by Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate), a member of the same dynasty.

In Misopogon, Julian explicitly states:

"I mean the Mysians on the very banks of the Danube, from whom my own family is derived, a stock wholly boorish, austere, awkward, without charm and abiding immovably by its decisions."

— Misopogon, section 3

Additionally, Julian writes: "And I myself, though my family is Thracian, am a Greek in my habits." — Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Vol. 2, trans. Wilmer Cave Wright, Harvard University Press, 1913, p. 501. Google Books link

These are not speculative ethnographic claims but firsthand imperial statements from a contemporary figure directly related to Constantine’s lineage. Julian's use of "Thracian" and "Mysian" strongly implies that the family’s origin lay in the Thraco-Moesian provincial population—people who were culturally Romanized but ethnically distinct.

The current labeling of Constantine and Constantius simply as "Illyrian" or without ethnic context overlooks this critical historical testimony. Unless contradicted by more direct sources, these explicit references justify updating their ethnic classification to Thraco-Roman. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, if this is a well established fact, then contemporary secondary scholarship will agree—as it's generated by historians trained to weigh different pieces of evidence to draw conclusions about the past, which are generally far, far more reliable than any claims I would make on my own looking at primary evidence, or that you would, I must presume. Don't keep us waiting, it shouldn't be difficult to identify and cite contemporary scholarship themselves making that particular claim about Constantine's ethnicity. Remsense ‥ 论 18:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Michael Grant mentions that his father Constantine Chlorus came from more of an eastern region Dacia Ripensis and was not a native of Naissus Remesiana the place which Constantine the Great was born: https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Emperor_Constantine/75ChbKPElCwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=constantine+the+great+thracian&printsec=frontcover Kelmend Highlander (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Right! Where does he say that Constantine was an ethnic "Thraco-Roman"? That's the claim you actually want to include in the article, after all. Remsense ‥ 论 19:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

We have firsthand evidence from his nephew Julian the Apostate from personal letter that he was Moesian-Thracian, i do believe this is substantial evidence, and removing completely that part is biased. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

If qualified historians agreed with you, they would also be characterizing Constantine's ethnicity this way. Given the primary evidence is so conclusive as you say, these statements shouldn't be difficult to find. Remsense ‥ 论 19:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is not much things to find regarding his background, what else would u want when the actual personal letter the very own male member mentions he is Thracian by background.

From the study of site: Late antique necropolis in Jagodin Mala (Naissus)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283643997_Late_antique_necropolis_in_Jagodin_Mala_Naissus

The Roman historian Ptolemy mentions Nais as a place in Dardania ([Nai]ssus Darda[niae]), while few archaeological finds and onomastic testimonials indicate presence of Thracian, Illyrian, Celtic and Dacian population members.2 Nais was the important strategic point on the crossroads: to and from it led significant trade and military roads to Viminacijum (Viminacium, p. (present) Kostolac) Racijarija (Ratiaria, p. Archar), Serdika (Serdica, p. Sofia), Constantinople (Constantinopolis, p. Istanbul), Thessalonica (Thessalon

So, if Julian the Apostate mentions his father's line is Moesian-Thracian, then we have no reason to doubt the person who was a living member of his family.

Also, in this Romanian paper:

Some considerations related to the Thracian- Dacian-Roman anthroponyms

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389360345_Some_considerations_related_to_the_Thracian-_Dacian-Roman_anthroponyms

Constantine is mentioned as Thraco-Dacian by origin. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Again from Attalus translation:

However, it becomes me to be silent about all that I have done for all my subjects in common, lest it should seem that I am purposely as it were singing my praises with my own lips, and that too after announcing that I should pour down on my own head many most opprobrious insults. But as for my actions with respect to you as individuals, which, though the manner of them was rash and foolish, nevertheless did not by any means deserve to be repaid by you with ingratitude, it would, I think, be becoming for me to bring them forward as reproaches against myself; and these reproaches ought to be more severe than those I uttered before, I mean those that related to my unkempt appearance and my lack of charm, inasmuch as they are more genuine since they have especial reference to the soul. I mean that before I came here I used to praise you in the strongest possible terms, without waiting to have actual experience of you, nor did I consider how we should feel towards one another; nay, since I thought that you were sons of Greeks, and I myself, though my family is Thracian, am a Greek in my habits, I supposed that we should regard one another with the greatest possible affection. This example of my rashness must therefore be counted as a reproach against me. Next, after you had sent an embassy to me - and it arrived not only later than all the other embassies, but even later than that of the Alexandrians who dwell in Egypt, - I remitted large sums of gold and of silver also, and all the tribute money for you separately apart from the other cities; and moreover I increased the register of your Senate by two hundred members and spared no man; for I was planning to make your city greater and more powerful.

https://www.attalus.org/translate/misopogon.html

This passage from Misopogon, where Julian the Apostate states, “And I myself, though my family is Thracian, am a Greek in my habits”, offers direct imperial testimony about his ethnic lineage. Given Julian’s position within the Constantinian dynasty, this remark strongly supports the Thracian origin of Constantine’s family.

The widespread labeling of Constantine and Constantius Chlorus as “Illyrian” is likely a byproduct of historical generalization or imprecision. In light of this explicit statement from a primary source, the classification should be updated to reflect their Thracian or Thraco-Roman origin, which is both more accurate and historically supported. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

what else would u want when the actual personal letter the very own male member mentions he is Thracian by background.

We are an encyclopedia that represents what secondary sources have to say. I want a reliable secondary source actually itself making the claim that you are making. Otherwise, it is not mentioned by our reliable sources, so we will not mention it either.

You are also making several different claims you seem to think are equivalent, but they're not. Ethnicity is not merely a function of heritage, i.e. where one's ancestors herald from. For example, the latter paper merely studies the where different personal names were used throughout the region—it is not an ethnology paper.

In the Roman world, people moved around an awful lot. A huge fraction (most?) of the Roman population had a parent or grandparent etc. that was from somewhere not as Roman as the place they lived. That doesn't mean they didn't see themselves as Roman. Romaness was tied up in citizenship and its associated cultural values, just like your quotations attest to. See Demography of the Roman Empire. Remsense ‥ 论 19:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate, a direct relative of Constantine, clearly states: “Though my family is Thracian, I am a Greek in my habits.” This is not interpretation, it’s a direct statement of familial origin from a contemporary source, published in a standard academic edition (Loeb, Harvard University Press).

Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY) doesn’t forbid primary sources, it forbids original synthesis. Citing Julian’s words isn’t synthesis. It’s reporting a fact. Ignoring this because it doesn’t align with 20th century generalizations about “Illyrian emperors” isn’t neutrality. It’s selective omission. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't disallowed, but they are completely incapable of supporting claims you want to make in terms of what you think ethnicity is in the 21st century. If your modern notions of ethnicity are the only motivating factor behind quoting Julian to begin with, then you are engaging in sneaky original synthesis. That is what I meant earlier when I say historians are qualified to interpret evidence from the past, and we are not. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern about anachronistically applying modern ethnic concepts to ancient identities. But in this case, that’s not what’s happening. Julian isn’t using “Thracian” in a vague or symbolic sense — he explicitly identifies his family origin as such. This isn’t a 21st-century projection. It’s a 4th-century self-description.

You said primary sources “can’t support claims about ethnicity,” but Julian is making an ethnic statement — not a cultural or civic one. When he says “my family is Thracian” and “we are from the Mysians on the Danube”, he’s not describing ideology or citizenship, but ancestry.

Given the clarity of Julian’s testimony, this should be included in the article, even if framed cautiously. It’s basic historical context. Ignoring this testimony entirely isn't neutrality. It’s omission of relevant sourced material, primary source from a male member of Constantinian dynasty. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What Julian is saying is his family is of Thracian heritage. Constantius Chlorus was Illyrian. Constantine, his son, grew up acculturated to Roman citizenship, the Roman military, and Roman urban society. Roughly modeling the different notions of identity in the Roman world, Constantine was a Roman with an Illyrian father. This is quite literally already how the article discusses the matter.

You know how much space mere heritage occupies in most of our biographies, ancient or otherwise? One sentence, maybe two. If you go out of your way quoting his grandchildren, spending more time discussing merely heritage, it becomes clear you are not accepting the sources for what they are saying in the Roman context, but projecting aspirations beholden to modern notions of ethnicity back onto the 3rd century. That is either dishonest WP:UNDUEWEIGHT or WP:OR or both, but either way it is an unacceptable direction given what we're working with. Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Julian, a 4th-century imperial insider and close relative (grandson of Constantine Chlorus), directly says his family is Thracian. That’s not speculation or modern projection. It’s a plain statement of origin from someone who knew. He also mentions the Mysians on the Danube as part of their descent. There’s no mention of Illyrians.

You’re reducing that to “he had an Illyrian father” without any source that uses the term Illyrian to describe Constantius Chlorus. That’s editorial assumption. In fact, it’s the Illyrian label that comes from 20th-century generalization, not from ancient sources.

It’s not undue weight to quote Julian or mention heritage. WP:PRIMARY allows this when the source is clear and relevant, which it is. It’s not OR either. I’m not interpreting. I’m just citing what’s there.

What would be undue is ignoring Julian’s statement entirely because it doesn’t fit a simplified model.

This doesn’t mean we call Constantine a modern ethnic Thracian. It just means we acknowledge what was said by someone from his own family. That deserves a line in the article. Otherwise, we’re selectively omitting sourced history. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The reference to Mysians might just be an entirely geographical reference to Moesia as it is likely that no actual Mysian people ever existed, but that this name was explicitly applied in the context of the Roman administrative divisions. For the interpretation of primary sources from antiquity, it is best to rely on the interpretation by modern historiography as it provides contextualization. That said, for Imperial Romans who fully embraced their status as Roman citizens, pre-Roman identities were largely seen as secondary and localized and weren't equivalent to the modern concept of ethnicity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

You have not made any demonstration as why we should spend even more space in the article discussing heritage, applying even more focus to it, save that you seem intent on conflating it with some notion of ethnicity. It's totally undue as far as I can discern, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 20:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be reaching out to other admins because this is clearly not neutral. Julian, a direct relative from the same dynasty, says in one quote that his family is Thracian and in another that they descend from the Mysians on the Danube, a known Dacian or Thracian group. That is not vague. It does not get more direct than that.

Dismissing those quotes while keeping the Illyrian label, which no primary source uses, is not neutrality. It is selective interpretation. This is not about modern ethnic projection. It is about acknowledging what the actual sources say. Ignoring that is misleading. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there are very many sources from people close to Bob Dylan talking about how he is Jewish. It would not be proportional to cite them all merely because we have them. We mention his Jewishness an above average amount because it comes up in sources an above average amount, including in the analysis of secondary sources.

It's unfortunate given you seemed willing to work with us for a moment and drop the conspiratorial accusations. Admins don't themselves decide who's right in content disputes, if you care about the actual reality of that social dynamic for a change. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That comparison is weird and completely off. Julian wasn’t just “close” to Constantine he was family and an emperor, giving a direct statement about their origin. That’s not hearsay, it’s firsthand imperial testimony. Comparing it to pop culture trivia is a deflection. Ignoring that while keeping “Illyrian,” which no ancient source actually uses, is selective. This isn’t about conspiracy, it’s about using sources consistently and fairly. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

No, my analogy still holds. If it doesn't, I'll pick another where the details line up. You're just dodging the core issue, which is this doesn't matter that much in his biography when zooming out and examining all our sources, save for your strenuous insistence that it must be important, because...? Remsense ‥ 论 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The same Julian who writes in Misopogon about "the Mysians on the very banks of the Danube, from whom my own family is derived" writes in the Panegyric to Constantius that Thirdly, the Illyrians, on whose soil you were born, will not tolerate it if anyone assign you a different fatherland and rob them of the fairest gift of fortune. Should these two statements combined be seen as an affirmation that the Mysians were Illyrians? Do they refer to multiple local ancestries? Are some terms tribal and others geographical? If so, which is which? The complexity of all of these questions and many more is the reason why we don't use primary sources in a direct manner in most cases, but via modern contextualization which reflects the continuous debates by historians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Julian never says the Illyrians were his or Constantius's ancestors. He’s simply referencing the region where Constantius was born, not his ethnic background. That passage is about competing provinces claiming symbolic ties to the emperor, not a genealogical statement.

In contrast, the Misopogon quote is explicit: “My family is Thracian” and “from the Mysians on the Danube.” That’s a clear statement of ancestry. It’s not rhetorical or symbolic, it’s direct and personal.

So no, these two quotes don't "balance" each other. One describes a birthplace. The other states descent. Conflating the two muddies the distinction between geography and lineage. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Even giving you everything you want, we have a passage where his grandson is yakking about his heritage. We already discuss his heritage. So what? Why is this moving the needle at all? Is your entire thing that the word is "Thracian", not "Illyrian"? Well, that's too bad, because we will rely on historians to weigh it with all the other evidence and tell us what was meant by that and what the general significance is, and we're already doing that. Mazeltov, sorry about your terminal tendentious complex. Remsense ‥ 论 20:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/toughersf

Professor Shaun Tougher, a respected specialist in Late Roman and Byzantine history, directly acknowledges Julian’s statement in Misopogon and affirms that Julian “thrice refers to the Thracian origin of his family.” This is from his book Julian the Apostate (Edinburgh University Press, 2007, p. 21). This is a reliable secondary source by academic standards, and it confirms the significance of the statement that’s been dismissed here as irrelevant or rhetorical “yakking.”

This is not about insisting that Constantine be redefined through a modern ethnic lens. It’s about acknowledging that a clear primary source now backed by a secondary one directly states his family’s Thracian origin. That moves the needle because it meets every standard you previously claimed to require: clarity, relevance, and scholarly recognition.

At this point, continuing to exclude this testimony while defending the “Illyrian” label which lacks similar ancient or specific scholarly support looks increasingly like selective enforcement, not balanced historiography. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Then why not mention Thracians directly, but Illyrians? - someone might very reasonably ask. As such, this is exactly what I wanted you to notice Kelmend: the need for interpretation - something which you are doing right now because ancient sources often contradict themselves. This need for interpretation is covered in wikipedia by contemporary and reliable sources, not by our own interpretation of primary sources. It is one of our core pillars and there's no alternative to it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This particular quote requires no interpretation. Julian the Apostate, a direct relative of Constantine and an emperor himself, explicitly states twice that his family is of Thracian origin.

In Misopogon:

“And I myself, though my family is Thracian, am a Greek in my habits.” — The Works of the Emperor Julian, Vol. II, trans. Wilmer Cave Wright, Harvard University Press, 1913, p. 501.

And again:

“The Mysians on the very banks of the Danube, from whom my own family is derived…”

These are not vague literary flourishes or philosophical metaphors. They are direct, personal references to his ancestry not citizenship, not cultural identity, but family origin.

There’s no contradiction to interpret here. No other ancient source says “Illyrian” that label comes from much later generalizations applied retroactively. If Julian’s statements are not worth a line in the article, then on what grounds is “Illyrian” given exclusive space, despite lacking primary backing?

This isn’t about pushing a narrative. It’s about not ignoring a source that speaks directly and clearly to the topic. Leaving it out while retaining unsourced ethnic labels is selective and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s standards. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Your comments are in fact interpretation because you actively chose that the term Illyrian can't refer to tribal ancestry, but Mysian - a term which most likely refers to the Roman administrative divisions - definitely does refer to it. As such, I don't think that you've fully understood my comment or what Remsense has explained again and again. From this point onward, I can only suggest that you don't engage in edit warring.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your claim is false. I’m not interpreting anything. I’m quoting Julian directly. He says "my family is Thracian" and "from the Mysians on the Danube." That is a plain, self-identified statement of ancestry. There is nothing to interpret. He said it himself.

  The term "Illyrian," which you and others keep defending, appears in no ancient source describing Constantine or his father. It is a modern generalization, applied retroactively based on geography or military careers. That is interpretation. That is editorial projection.

  If you're accusing me of interpretation while defending a term the sources never even use, that's called projection. I’m stating exactly what the source says, and now I have modern academic support. Professor Shaun Tougher, a recognized historian of Late Antiquity, directly confirms that Julian identified his family as Thracian. This is not a fringe view. It is documented and valid. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Kelmend Highlander is interpreting WP:primary sources, which are also not directly related to the subject of this article. Julian's statements are his own, not Constantius' or Constantine's ones, futhermore, they are not clearly talking about ethnicity, as they could have been about the Roman administrative region where those people came from, i.e. Moesia Superior. Concerning the specific Illyrian (not Thracian) background of Constantine and his father Constantius, which is actually the relevant information to be included in article's text in order to understand the subjects of these Wikipedia articles about Roman Illyrian emperors, see what scholar Odahl states in his book that entirely focuses on Constantine the Great (a top notch reliable source about the subject of this article):

  "The elevation of Diocletian to the imperial throne by bloodshed and civil war might have presaged just another violent and ephemeral reign amid the chaos of the third-century imperial crisis. However, this was not the case as his long and largely successful rule marked the beginning of a recovery in the fortunes of the Roman world. Known for his practical wisdom, Diocletian early gained the respect of other tough and patriotic Illyrian peasants who had risen through the ranks with him, and who would serve him loyally as he devised manifold reforms for the many problems facing the Roman Empire. One such man was Flavius Constantius, the father of Constantine. He was slightly younger than Diocles; but he had followed his older Illyrian comrade into the Protectors, and fought with him against Goths on the Danube, against Zenobia in Syria, and against Germans in Gaul. They had both received high commissions in the Roman army; and while Diocletian was commanding the imperial Protectors in the eastern Persian campaign, Constantius was serving as governor of Dalmatia in the western Illyrian region. When the contest with Carinus came, Constantius sided with Diocletian and held key troops in central Europe loyal to his military comrade and fellow countryman. Over the next few years Diocletian would reward Constantius and other loyal Illyrians by bringing them into his government and by making them co-emperors in his new order. Aurelius Victor commented that "Illyricum was indeed the homeland of all these men, and, although they were little versed in culture, they were sufficiently imbued with the hardships of country and military life to be the best men for the state."

  As the fortunes of Constantius rose with those of Diocletian, so would the prospects of his son Constantine. Conceived with his tavern-maid bride back in the reign of Aurelian, the son of Constantius was about twelve years old as his friend became emperor. By this time, Constantine had developed a close bond with his mother Helena as his father had often been away on military campaigns. Yet, the young Illyrian lad was probably beginning to marvel at the stories of his father's adventures, to understand the importance of his father's position, and to dream of following in his father's footsteps. Within a decade his dreams would become reality as Constantine left his adolescence and entered the military under the command of his father's colleagues." – Βατο (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're framing Julian’s statement as if it’s some irrelevant side note, but that’s misleading. Julian wasn’t speculating, he was a Roman emperor and a blood relative of Constantine, speaking directly about their family origin. That is primary, dynastic testimony, and it's relevant whether you like it or not.

  Odahl's use of “Illyrian” is based on geography and military structure, he never engages with Julian's claim or disputes it. You're not choosing one over the other, you're excluding one entirely.

  Including Julian’s statement, especially now that it’s acknowledged by Professor Shaun Tougher (Edinburgh University Press, 2007) who by far is far more reliable than Odahl and a more quoted author, is the correct, policy-compliant thing to do. It doesn't contradict Odahl. It complements the historical picture with firsthand imperial testimony. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's a first. Since when are we using primary sources (literally not even by Constantine himself) in order to overrule high-quality sources? WP:PRIMARY sources, if at all, should be used with highest caution. Even if there were secondary sources sustaining 'Kelmend Highlander's proposed changes, it would require a consensus on this talk page - which is evidently not happening under these circumstances. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Let’s be clear from the start. This is the only direct passage where a male member of the Constantinian dynasty talks about his family origin. Julian the Apostate doesn’t speculate or describe a region. He says flat-out: “my family is Thracian” and that they come from the Mysians on the Danube. That’s not about where he was stationed or what unit he commanded, that’s about bloodline. Genus.

  Everything else including the 20th-century assumption of “Illyrian” is a guess based on vague administrative zones or army recruitment hubs. That label is tied more to Diocletian’s reforms and military service than actual ethnic lineage.

  And let’s not forget, even Naissus, Constantine’s birthplace, shows more archaeological continuity with Daco-Moesian and Thracian populations than with anything classically Illyrian. So when a direct family member gives us the origin, and modern historians like Shaun Tougher take that seriously, pretending it doesn’t exist just to preserve a generic label is not academic caution. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is the only direct passage where a male member of the Constantinian dynasty talks about his family origin.

  Seems it's likely not that important or ramified in our sources, and therefore it may very well go unremarked upon in our encyclopedia article. That's the preliminary conclusion this statement of yours actually clearly suggests—at least to anyone who is not mainly interested in pushing for a given POV to be given undue weight compared to that found across our reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 07:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I found this passage in Timothy Barnes' Constantine, p. 30, relevant. Unlike Odahl or Tougher, Barnes does not believe in ethnically labelling Constantius (whether it is Illyrian or Thracian):

All four emperors who ruled jointly from 293 to 305 came from Illyricum (Victor, Caes. 39.36). But Illyricum is an imprecise geographical term almost as wide in meaning as ‘the Balkans’ in modern parlance. [...] Julian speaks of Thracians as his fellow citizens and proclaims that his family was Thracian, even if he himself is a true Hellene in his way of life (Misopogon 20, 350cd; 40, 367c). But Thrace and Thracians are also terms of wide geographical application.

He says that the only valuable information we can extract is that Constantius was born in Dacia Ripensis:

One passage in the Beard-Hater is, however, much more precise: it states that the author’s family derived from the Moesians who dwell on the banks of the River Danube between the Thracians and the Pannonians (18, 348cd). As Ronald Syme demonstrated, Julian indicates that his grandfather came from the area once known as Moesia and Treballia, which became the province of Dacia Ripensis which Aurelian created in 271 when he evacuated Trajan’s Dacia north of the Danube (Syme 1983: 64–65).

If we are going to keep "Illyrian" (or "Thracian") in the lede, shouldn't we note at least note this view? Soidling (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Soidling, thanks for bringing up the Barnes passage, it’s a fair and nuanced point. Barnes is right that terms like Illyricum, Thrace, or Moesia were often fluid and geographic in nature. But we’re not speculating here, Julian uses the term “genus” in Misopogon (“genus meum Thraces”), which refers directly to familial or ancestral origin, not merely regional association.

That’s why Professor Shaun Tougher, in Julian the Apostate (2007), states plainly that Julian “thrice refers to the Thracian origin of his family”, he treats it as meaningful testimony, not vague geography. Tougher is a specialist in Julian and imperial identity, so this isn’t an offhand remark, it’s a considered judgment based on primary and contextual reading.

We can still respect Barnes’ cautious stance, but omitting Julian’s own words, or modern historians like Tougher who take them seriously, creates an imbalance. The Thracian lineage claim is clearly attested, and it deserves inclusion alongside the others for the sake of completeness and accuracy. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Soidling, I see no issue with that.

I'm not sure why @Kelmend Highlander bothered to reply here though, given they rejected the entire substance of the source's argument—one that actually directly discusses Constantine's ethnicity—as quickly as was linguistically possible, and went right back to lobbying for privileging a particular passage from a primary source indirectly related to the article subject in order to fulfill what they personally believe to be an "imbalance", which they cannot actually justify outside their own opinion. Reaching to sources about other subjects and extrapolating what we want from them is, again, original synthesis at worst and undue weight at best. We seek to represent our reliable (largely modern and secondary) sources about the topic in a proportionate manner, not sources about other, even related topics. If this is actually important to Constantine, you will find a source about Constantine that discusses it—if you have to resort to biographies of his family members, it is a clear sign you are reaching in a manner that is specious and transparently more concerned in your POV than proportionally representing our reliable sources about Constantine.

If sources actually directly about Constantine can be cited for this, then we can start discussing whether the views should be represented and what weight should be given if so, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. We haven't even gotten there yet. I recommend others stop engaging with their tedious replies unless this very basic bar (i.e. citing a reliable secondary source directly about Constantine that characterizes him as being of Illyrian ethnicity) can be cleared.

They also really do not need to apply obnoxious bolding to their repetitions, as we're all fully literate and have in fact read these attempted arguments the first time they were posted. Remsense ‥ 论 06:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts. First it's "show a source that mentions Thracian origin." Then when Julian, a direct male descendant, does exactly that and Dr. Shaun Tougher backs it up you dismiss it as irrelevant. That’s not sticking to policy, that’s selectively ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit a preferred narrative. If you want to follow WP:RS and WP:DUE, then deal with all the reliable sources, not just the ones that support your framing. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, my first message certainly implored you to identify and cite contemporary scholarship themselves making that particular claim about Constantine's ethnicity. Remsense ‥ 论 07:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

By downplaying Julian’s explicit statements and Tougher’s direct support while upholding “Illyrian” based on indirect generalizations, you’re not preserving neutrality you’re skewing it. WP:PRIMARY permits citing clear primary sources without interpretation, and Julian’s use of genus to describe Thracian family origin meets that bar. Excluding this entirely, while retaining “Illyrian,” tips toward omission rather than balance.

A fair article should acknowledge both views: the traditional “Illyrian” label (per Odahl, Barnes) and the Thracian origin attested by Julian and supported by Tougher. A single line like “While often described as Illyrian due to his regional ties, Julian, a relative, claimed the family was of Thracian origin” would reflect the sources proportionally, in line with WP:DUE. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You've already been told inclusion is predicated on your own interpretation of a primary source, or at the bare minimum potential original synthesis extrapolating scholarship about something Julian says into either a total non-sequitur (this article is about Constantine, not Julian) or into the substantively different claim about Constantine you actually want to make. You seem very comfortable with effectively putting words in Tougher's mouth here—whose work you claim to prize so much.

You've already been told that inclusion would regardless be predicated on your ignoring what scholarship directly about Constantine says or doesn't say. You've been told already in many different ways the basic requirement for consideration is to identify and cite contemporary scholarship themselves making that particular claim about Constantine's ethnicity, and I reiterate my suggestion that no one else bother engaging here further until you can do that. Remsense ‥ 论 07:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If the claim you actually want to include (and are presently using Julian as a roundabout way to attempt to include) is represented in scholarship directly, then that should be cited, not anything else. If it is not represented in scholarship directly, then it is not relevant to this article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"That on the father's side I am descended from the same stock as Constantius on his father's side is well known. Our fathers were brothers, sons of the same father. "

The Works of the Emperor Julian/Letter to the senate and people of Athens

"Finally, Julian also comments on the ethnic origin of the dynasty. In his Misopogon he thrice refers to the Thracian origin of his family."

Dr. Saun Tougher Julian the Apostate 2007 page 21

We already quoted Misopogon here several times. This meets WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. The continued insistence that it doesn't is starting to look like selective gatekeeping. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You've already been told that inclusion would regardless be predicated on your ignoring what scholarship directly about Constantine says or doesn't say. You've been told already in many different ways the basic requirement for consideration is to identify and cite contemporary scholarship themselves making that particular claim about Constantine's ethnicity, and I reiterate my suggestion that no one else bother engaging here further until you can do that. Remsense ‥ 论 07:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been following this discussion for some time. My impression is that per Wikipedia policy, his father's ethnicity or origin (or whatever we call it) should not be in the lede at all. Per WP:MOSBIO Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability.. Here, we're not even talking about Constantine himself, but his father. Constantius Chlorus' origin can be mentioned in the body text, but it is completely undue for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Khirurg: that Constantine and his father Constantius were Illyriciani or of Illyrian background is relevant for the lede because it is the actual reason why they became Roman emperors, read Odahl's book of the biography of Constantine the Great for that. As per WP:MOSBIO, that info is to be included in the lead section. – Βατο (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Odahl is not on the same level as Shaun Tougher when it comes to authority or citation frequency in Byzantine and Late Roman scholarship. Many older historians misread the term Illyricum as ethnic, when it was mostly a provincial label. That’s how even Justinian, Belisarius, and Justin I who was nicknamed Justin the Thracian (the irony) ended up incorrectly categorized as Illyrian despite being ethnically Daco-Mysian or Thracian.

Julian the Apostate, a direct male member of the Constantinian dynasty, clearly states that his family (genus) was Thracian. That’s not ambiguous, it’s a firsthand statement of ethnic origin. This deserves to be reflected in the article alongside modern scholarly confirmation like Tougher’s. Ignoring it while inserting vague Illyrian labels based on older generalizations is misleading. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The ethnic/geographic background is relevant to Constantius, considering Diocletian's choice of co-emperors was his colleagues with a similar background as himself. But this article is about Constantine and his claim to power has less to do with his ethnicity than the primogeniture status. Soidling (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, and in either case, his father's ethnicity is not relevant for the lede. I have no problem mentioning it in the body, but there is no compelling argument why his father's ethnicity should be mentioned in the lede. There is not a single other similar article where such a thin occurs. Khirurg (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

One point that’s consistently overlooked is that Constantine’s birthplace, Naissus, was never Illyrian in any archaeological or ethnic sense. During the Iron Age, it was the land of the Thracian Triballi, followed by the Celtic Scordisci, and later saw limited Dardanian presence under Roman control. Calling it Illyrian is a geographical generalization, not a reflection of historical ethnic reality.

More importantly, we have a direct primary source from Julian the Apostate, a male descendant of the Constantinian line, who explicitly states that his family (genus) was Thracian. It’s a firsthand identification. Shaun Tougher, a respected and widely cited historian, confirms that Julian refers to his family’s Thracian origin three times in Misopogon (IMO this fact should be acknowledged in the article) should carry more weight than retroactive assumptions based on vague “Illyricum” labels from 20th-century sources.

@Soidling, I think that Thracian origin isn’t speculative, it’s attested by family testimony and modern scholarship. Excluding it while retaining “Illyrian” which is being retained by no direct weigh and primary source (it is just weighless educated guess) would be inconsistent and misleading. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"vague “Illyricum” labels from 20th-century sources." Illyricum? The reference is probably to the Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum which covered most of the Balkans, with the exception of the Diocese of Thrace. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As long as it is not in the lede, I'm fine with keeping either Illyrian or Thracian origin of Constantius in the article. But I don't think we can find out Constantius' true ethnicity from his birthplace. While Naissus (Constantius' city of birth isn't entirely clear however) was inhabited by Thracians in pre-Roman times, people moved around in the Roman empire (for instance Helena, who was probably born in Bithynia, had moved to Naissus). In addition to Barnes, who thinks Thrace and Illyricum are just geographic markers, Kaldellis says that these identities rarely mapped onto actual ethnicity (New Roman Empire, p. 27).

[...] the authorities referred to the inhabitants of each province as a nation (ethnos), an ostensibly natural community defined by common culture and a shared history. [...] Rarely did these artificial provincial divisions map onto actual ethnic groups [...] It eventually became a standard way of referring to one's origin in literary texts, inscriptions, and daily life: one was a Cappadocian or a Phoenician "by race," or from the Bithynian "nation." In effect, this designated only one's provincial origin.

He says some real ethnic Thracians can be found, like Leo who was called "Bessian" (p. 28). But I haven't seen Constantius or Constantine being referred to as such. Soidling (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the clearest first-hand references to familial origin we have: Julian the Apostate, a male member of the Constantinian dynasty and Roman emperor himself, explicitly states that their family was Thracian. That’s not a vague provincial label, it's a specific ethnic/genus attribution made by someone inside the lineage. Whether or not such identifiers were consistently applied across the empire is secondary here, this is a direct self-identification from within the family, and modern scholarship like Shaun Tougher acknowledges it clearly. For balance and accuracy, this deserves to be included in the article. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not a matter of balance, but of WP:RS. Your interpretation of a primary source about another individual (Constantius) is not a reliable source. Soidling Genetic samples from the Naissus region in antiquity so far include individuals who were presumably Illyrians, Thracians, some people from the Middle East and even lineages of Germanic origin. This is how diverse and multiethnic this region was, hence I wouldn't expect in the future any author to claim a specific origin about any historical figure from this region based on an argument linking geography to ethnicity .--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate was not some unrelated observer, he was a direct male-line member of the Constantinian dynasty and a Roman emperor. When he states that his family was of Thracian genus, it’s not speculation or interpretation, it’s a clear, self-ascribed origin. Shaun Tougher, a widely respected modern historian (way more cited than Odahl), explicitly acknowledges this. Dismissing such a firsthand statement while allowing vague “Illyrian” labels based on general geography or retroactive assumptions is a selective application of WP:RS. If anything, Julian’s statement deserves more weight — not less. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If your interpretation deserves more weight, then future bibliography will imbue it with such weight and wikipedia will discuss it extensively. For now, you'll have to wait until such a time arrives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If “Illyrian” remains despite being based on indirect assumptions and geography, then excluding the Thracian origin directly attested by a primary source and confirmed by modern scholarship is gatekeeping. Either both perspectives are presented for balance, or neither should be. Anything else isn’t neutrality, it’s selective filtering. Kelmend Highlander (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Helena's origins

Regarding my recent revert: the exact ethnic origins of Helena are not known, as the sources themselves make clear, so I was somewhat surprised by the edit summary. In any case, describing her simply as Greek does not accurately reflect the scholarlship in my opinion. A more balanced phrasing might be: "Helena likely originated from a Greek-speaking region." That said, I’m open to further discussion. Nishjan (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from implying you have read the sources directly cited in the article about this, given the above demonstrates you clearly haven't. Remsense ‥ 论 15:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with @Nishjan here. I've seen some encyclopedic entries describing her as Greek but they are always the ones that cater to broader topics and not a specialist opinion on Helena. Helena's biographies by Drijvers and Hillner do not imply she was categorically Greek (Drijvers considers Helena's birthplace to be in Bithynia though not entirely uncertain; Hillner believes she was probably a Greek speaker but that does not mean she was Greek). We don't know about her ancestry either. Soidling (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

When talking about the second century AD, virtually no one's ethnicity or ancestry is known with certainty. Constantius Chlorus' ethnicity is not certain either, yet it is prominently mentioned in the lede. But Bithynia had been Greek speaking for centuries, at which point the distinction between "Greek" and "Greek-speaking" had largely been lost, which is why authors like Stanton (2012) simply refer to her as "Greek". What I can't accept is that one parent's ethnicity is mentioned in the lede, but not the others. Either both, or neither. Khirurg (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Khirurg You are right that calling her Greek isn't entirely inaccurate and her true ethnicity is irrelevant in that period. However, she would have been called a "Bithynian" foremost (Kaldellis, The New Roman Empire p. 27: "one was a Cappadocian or a Phoenician "by race," or from the Bithynian "nation."") People from outside, such as the Latin West or ethnic Syrians to name a few, may have called her Greek, but this is assuming her family lacked other ethnic affiliations — something which cannot be ascertained. I don't think her "Greek" label is comparable to Constantius Chlorus being called "Illyrian". Constantius was actually called as such by ancient and modern historians alike. With Helena, there is no ancient source that says she was Greek and her origin is handled more carefully by her modern biographers. Stanton (2012)'s entry on "Byzantium" which has a cursory mention of Helena being Greek is written by Marina Pyrovolaki, who seems to specialize in Islamic/Arabic history - her view cannot be considered more authoritative on the subject of Helena than Drijvers (1992) and Hillner (2023) who never categorizes her as Greek. But I agree that neither her or Constantius' ethnicity/origin should be in the lede. Soidling (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You raise some good points, which got me thinking about the use of the category "Ancient Roman people of Greek descent". I don't believe it's appropriate in this context. The same applies to the "Greek people" category currently used in Helena's article. After looking into it, I think both could be more accurately and neutrally replaced with the category "People from Bithynia", which aligns better with scholarly consensus. That said, this category would likely be more applicable to Helena than to Constantine, since he wasn’t actually born there. Nishjan (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"When talking about the second century AD," As far as I know, you are the only one talking about the 2nd century. The rest of the editors are talking about individuals of the Tetrarchy period in the late 3rd and early 4th century. Their 2nd-century ancestors are not relevant. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Soidling, I actually find your last edit quite good. I'm satisfied with how the article is presented now. However, I reinserted the wiki-link that redirects to the Illyrians which was already present in the article's lede. Other than that, I have no further remarks. Nishjan (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)