Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constans II (son of Constantine III)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2025 [1].

---

Constans II (son of Constantine III)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

On being elevated to Western Roman emperor Constantine III ordered the military evacuation of Roman Britain and - less famously - had his son Constans the monk brought from his monastery, married him off and appointed him Caesar and heir. One imagines Constans being a little startled. He had a brief and not wholly successful political and military career, being appointed full emperor before meeting an untimely end. Not a great deal is known of him, but I believe that all that is is gathered here, along with a hopefully appropriate amount of context and background. I worked this up a couple of years ago and took it to GAN. Then it fell down the back of my to do tray during my 18 month break from nominating FACs. But here it is, a sad but simple tale, dusted off and presented for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

UC

I could hardly miss out on this one, could I?

• The structure of the article is a little unusual: we have a "prelude" section to his life which begins in 406. Given that Constans was a monk in 408, he was either very precocious, or this "prelude" actually took place during his life. I'm not sure this is a crippling problem, but would consider pulling up the "little is known" paragraph first, then discussing this stuff as a prelude specifically to his political life rather than his biological one.

I have deleted the Prelude section header and expanded the background. Moved "Life" up a little but kept the prose in chronological order.

• the son of Western Roman emperor Constantine III: this is somewhat personal, but I am not a fan of "Emperor So-and-So" as a title in the Roman context: while e.g. Japanese emperors are referred to as e.g. "Emperor Naruhito", in the Roman context it was a job (and not really one known by that name) rather than a title. So, I'd prefer the Western Roman emperor or similar, just as we'd say "the consul Torquatus" rather than "consul Torquatus". I appreciate that this is a little murkier still in the late-Roman context! For most of the article, you follow that principle, which makes this a false title.

A fair point. Changed. Let me know if you see others I have missed.

• Constans was a monk prior to his father's being acclaimed emperor by the army in Britain in early 407, an act of rebellion against the ruling emperor Honorius.: this sentence runs on a bit: a casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that being a monk was an act of rebellion.

According to Gibbon ... never mind. Rephrased.

• In Hispania, Honorius's relatives rose in 408 and expelled Constantine's administration: I find rose on its own a little old-fashioned here (like "Easter Rising"): rebelled might be repetitious, but rose up against Constantine and expelled his administration, perhaps?

Changed to "Honorius's relatives took up arms in 408 and expelled Constantine's administration.". Does that work?

• "Augustus" is always capitalised, even as a title (pace MOS:PEOPLETITLES), as is "Caesar".

I clicked on the link and the first thing I read is "Overview: Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically." I struggle to see how this matches your interpretation. "the position of caesar" seems to me to be a generic use.

Yes -- I'm going against the MoS here for two reasons. Firstly, as I understand it, rule 0 of Wikipedia formatting is "follow the norms established in HQRS", and we should generally not use broad-brush rules to bulldoze small-scale exceptions (generally, we capitalise people's initials, but not if they're e. e. cummings). Here, I've never seen augustus written like that in a professional publication, so I would be very reluctant to use a non-specific MoS diktat to do something that any other publication would consider a mistake. Secondly, I think "globally unique title" doesn't quite account for the few cases where a title isn't unique but it is very finite. For example, we have "the Pope" when we're using that title to stand in: by the letter of the MoS, we should drop that capital for those periods in which more than one person used the title. Similarly, we would capitalise "the King of France met with the Spanish ambassador": in theory, we should drop the capital for "the King of Sparta met with Xerxes's ambassador", because there was more than one king, but that seems similarly silly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"I've never seen augustus written like that in a professional publication". More, probably much more - sigh - to follow on this, but before I return it to its book shelf, the first volume I looked at to check this assertion was Kulikowski's Imperial Tragedy. The very first sentence of the introduction starts "In February or March 360, the senior Roman emperor, the augustus Constantius II ..." Two pages later "... set out against his rebel caesar."

I stand corrected. Clearly need to read more! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

LOL. If you have come across it so seldom that you have read past those occasions I think we can assume it is a minority use. But I found it amusing that the book by my PC that I picked up to check had "augustus" in the first line. (Kulikowski has the same usage in his 2000 work; I haven't looked at anyone else.) Sod's Law would suggest that you will now come across two similar cases over the next week. :-)

"Firstly, as I understand it, rule 0 of Wikipedia formatting is "follow the norms established in HQRS". " 'Fraid not. The lead of MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." (RS, not HQRS.) But it continues and concludes with "There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below." Below includes "In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor". There is also a link to MOS:PEOPLETITLES, which includes "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically". I am unsure that there is much else to say on the topic.

In passing: "generally, we capitalise people's initials, but not if they're e. e. cummings". The article on Edward Estlin Cummings is titled "E. E. Cummings" and he is referred to throughout as Cummings; "in theory, we should drop the capital for "the King of Sparta met with Xerxes's ambassador"." only if it is unclear which king of Sparta did the meeting, if this is clear from context then the "title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" and it should be capitalised.

Yes, bad examples there (and probably illustrative that, in practice, real problems in this area are unlikely to arise). However, my view is that specific usage norms generally (!) supercede general rules, so if we did hypothetically have a title that was universally written with a capital in good sources, I would probably plead the overarching principle that we should break any MoS rule rather than doing something patently silly (I'm sure you remember Orwell giving very similar advice). At any rate, Kulikowski makes the point moot here: lc is perfectly MoS- and HQRS-compliant. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Your reference to Orwell caused me to smile. I can see us both calling on him in future discussions. (On the topic of which, can I distract you with this?) I suspect that - fortunately or not - he will turn out to be like the Bible, with a quote for every occasion and to support every position. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• incited barbarian groups in Gaul to rise up: I think we need to add the context that these were not Gallic barbarians, but (very) recent newcomers from across the frontier: after all, Gaul had been Roman territory for half a millennium or so, and its people Roman citizens about two centuries.

Good point. I have gone with "incited barbarian groups which had recently invaded Gaul to rise up." Does that work for you?

• Flavius Claudius Constantinus was a common soldier: we say that he was not an officer, but I'm not sure those two statements are quite equivalent: to me, "a common soldier" rules out "a centurion", which would not be considered an officer. Does the source support that distinction?

Yep. "Though a common soldier and not an officer, Constantine was ..." (Kulikowski, 2000, "Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain".)

• a contemporary described it as a province rich in usurpers: who was this contemporary?

Oh dear, you know the sources better than me. How embarrassing. I was quite sure this was in Heather, as cited. But it's not, so I have no idea where I did get it from. (Probably Wijnendaele and forgot to cite it?) Any hoo, it is quoted frequently so I have cited it to Nic Fields - the most recent source I have come across with it in, the most recent, and gives some context. Very well picked up.

• He took with him all of the 6,000 or so mobile troops left in Britain: this seems to imply that the number had decreased, but it was 6,000 at the start of this section as well.

The intention is to quantify the number of mobile troops, rather than rely on a reader remembering it from earlier in the section. I could delete "6,000 or so" if you feel it would help a reader not draw a false conclusion, although that seems unhelpful in a different way to me. Or I could switch to "taking with him the entire field army of 6,000 or so troops", much as this sounds like a plodding repetition to me.

• The Roman Army of Gaul declared for him: lose the captial on Army, and consider a rephrase to make it sound less like a coherent, organised unit -- we're not talking about something comparable to e.g. the Army of the Potomac in terms of organisational identity.

Weell, it was probably more organised than, say, the French army at Crécy. But I digress. Tweaked to "The Roman army in Gaul".

• Italy, at the end of the Prelude section, is an overlink.

Unlinked.

• "Praetorian prefect" is English, not Latin, so should not be italicised.

Unitalicised.

• made a show of being an equal of both the Western and Eastern Emperors.: Does this mean that he assertively claimed to be their equal? As written, it makes that equality sound like a statement of fact, which is a little dubious, put mildly.

I meant show in the Wiktionary sense of "display or pomp with no substance", but I am more than happy to tweak it. How does "and attempted to present himself as the equal of both the Western and Eastern Emperors' sound?

• Hispania was a stronghold of the House of Theodosius, but on Constantine's initial landing on the continent, Honorius's partisans had been either unwilling or militarily unable to oppose his assumption of control.: it might be worth reminding us that Theodosius had been Honorius's father.

True, but I couldn't see how to do it readily, and so have rephrased.

• There are a lot of place names in the "Caesar" section -- a long shot, but is there a good zoomed-in map of the area with some of them on?

Not that I can find. Ravenna to Lusitania s a fair span. I think one would need most of SW Europe to make sense of it.

• Honorius acknowledged him as co-emperor and sent a purple robe as formal recognition: I think it would be worth explaining the symbolism of purple here.

Getting into the weeds a bit, but both a link and an explanatory footnote added.

• He took the regnal name of Imperator Caesar Flavius Constans Augustus. At least one of these is not, strictly, part of a name.

Can't understand how I read past that. The more I dig into this, the less I feel it can be summarised in few enough words to be worth the trouble. So I have deleted it, but added a snippet about his name earlier in the article.

• Suggest piping a link to Sack of Rome (410) at the appropriate point.

Done.

• On the silqua: I would explain what a silqua is, and how the image on the reverse celebrates victory.

Caption tweaked.

• Ticinum seems to be about the only city we introduce without its modern equivalent (Pavia).

Whoops. Added.

• They spread devastation across these areas, much to the horror of the populace.: not sure what this adds or is getting at. Would we expect people to be happy about devastation being spread across their home areas?

Removed.

• Eventually Gerontius was able to reach a modus operandi with some of these groups whereby they supplied him with military forces, which enabled him to take the offensive against Constans.: I must admit to not having heard modus operandi used in this way (do you mean modus vivendi?): as much as it pains me to speak against Latin, it does seem to be unnecessarily opaque here when "arrangement" would do.

Quite right, as Orwell wrote with perspicaciousness "A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up the details". I am in your debt; "arrangement" it is.

• Meanwhile, Edobichus raised troops in northern Gaul among the Franks and Alamanni: I was surprised to see a citation to Bury 1889 here. If there's something in such an old source that isn't echoed in any modern one, despite the reasonable number of works available, I would be very circumspect about including it.

It has been so long that I can't remember why I included Bury. Possibly to ensure that I could demonstrate that I had consulted all of the RSs. Hah! Checking, the sentence and a half is fully supported by Heather, so it does look as if that is what I added Bury for. Now removed.

• Constantine, his hopes fading after the troops guarding the Rhine abandoned him to support yet another claimant to the imperial throne, the Gallic Roman Jovinus, surrendered to Constantius along with his surviving son Julian. Despite the promise of his life, and the assumption of clerical office, Constantius had the former soldier and Julian beheaded in either August or September 411: slight ambiguity: whose son was Julian? On another note, I think the elegant variation of "the former soldier" is best avoided. I assume you mean Constantine, but it could theoretically be Jovinus, and in any rate is less clear than it could be.

Rephrased as "After the troops guarding the Rhine abandoned him to support yet another claimant to the imperial throne – the Gallic Roman Jovinus – Constantine despaired, and he and his surviving son Julian surrendered to Constantius." and "the former soldier" taken out.

• Typo in the title of Kulikowski 2000.

Ah, yes, embarrassing. I had already spotted it.

• Hyphens in Drinkwater 1998 should be dashes.

Done.

• In Jones et al 1990 and Snyder 2003, Blackwell Publishers should be Blackwell, for consistency.

Done. Thanks.

• Double quotes in the title of Wijnendaele should be single.

Done.

I'm afraid that these are mostly points of detail -- I must admit that I slightly lost my way among the huge cast of characters, provinces and rebellions. The opacity is mostly a function of its being a very complicated story, rather than any deficiency of the writing: I will have to give it another go!

Oh dear. As I said in the introduction to the nomination, I have included "a hopefully appropriate amount of context and background". If I have over done things I could probably simplify this back a little.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi UndercoverClassicist. Yes, I thought that this one may interest you. Thanks for diving in so promptly with a comprehensive review. And apologies for taking so long to get around to addressing them - I still haven't read most! Real life has been unusually pressing and much of the time I have had for Wikipedia has gone to scheduling May's TFAs, or a little FAC coordinating. But, at last, I seem to have the time to settle down and go through your comments properly; so responses should be incoming shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Good evening UndercoverClassicist. It has taken me ridiculously long, but I have, I think, finally addressed all of your comments. I look forward to seeing what you make of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I need another pass at this -- I still find it difficult to follow the narrative. As above, that's partly because it's a very difficult story, but the FA criteria require us to ask whether a professional writer could make it clear -- I'm not ready to say that they couldn't, despite the high bar that this now places upon the present writer. No promises on timing or outcomes, unfortunately, but I'll do what I can when I can. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is moderately complicated, although as my other current FAC is the Punic Wars I have to say that these things are relative. I wrote in the introduction to this nomination "along with a hopefully appropriate amount of context and background" and the more I have worked on it since the more I have felt that I got it about right. The fact that a couple of reviewers who wouldn't have hesitated to tell me that I have over complicated it haven't also reassures me. Although your and Parsecboy's criticisms caused some reordering of paragraphs which I think have improved the flow. I do have a couple of things up my sleeve to dial back the complications, but as this would be at the expense of things I hope a reader would find useful or at least interesting I hope it doesn't come to that. There is no rush - obviously you know have me on tenter hooks, but in FAC terms the nomination is young. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi UC, I hope that you are enjoying the Easter weather. As it has been a few days I thought I would check how your ruminations were going. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It's getting there, but I still some C1 work would be to the good. I've made a couple of copyedits for grammar and clarity, which I hope are uncontroversial (but please feel free to revert/discuss any that are). A few bits, I think, could still do with attention:

• In 402 Stilicho needed soldiers for wars with invading groups of the Germanic tribes the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths in Italy and the western Balkans: not very clear, and I'm not sure whether we've got both tribes in both places here.

Simplified to just the Visigoths and so just Italy. The travails of the East are not that relevant to Constans.

• the garrisons of the coastal defences had been withdrawn to form the new field army and their commander had been replaced: is this the commander of the whole army, or of the garrisons? If the former, suggest a comma before and.
• During this period Roman Britain suffered raids by the Scoti, Saxons and Picts, both overland and from the sea: did the Saxons really come overland, and the Picts from the sea?

Removed "both overland and from the sea" to simplify.

• next chose as their leader a man named after the famed emperor of the early fourth century, Constantine the Great: do we know that he was specifically named after Constantine the Great, rather than just sharing his name? Even then, this might be excessive detail (we wouldn't usually say "the British electorate chose a woman with the same name as the Queen to be Prime Minister" unless her name was particularly important in context).

Point 1, fair enough, changed to "a man who shared the name of the famed emperor". Point 2, yes, the sources agree that a common soldier was plucked from the ranks solely because of his name. Eg Drinkwater "According to Orosius, Constantine was chosen to be emperor solely on account of the hope inspired by his name: 'propter solam spem nominis' ... it is far from implausible that Constantine's candidature was helped by the superstitious association of his name with that of Constantine I, who had begun his imperial career with a usurpation in Briton". Or Kulikowski "Thereupon the army chose a common soldier named Constantine, supposedly because of his auspicious name, and raised him to the purple. Etc.

OK -- I think we should say that explicitly, then. At the moment, the similarity of name reads as a coincidence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Added.

• the contemporary historian Jerome: Jerome was not really a historian (nor, incidentally, would I expect him to have had much clue about Britain, but it's a nice quote).

I didn't include Jerome's name when I nominated, I didn't see why we needed to clutter the article with yet another contemporary's name, but you seemed keen on his inclusion. Yes, fine quote.

No problem with the name, but I'd probably call him a theologian or something along those lines. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Done.

• when he was summoned to the new imperial court: this might not be an answerable question, but where exactly was that?

I had been assuming it was Arles. But inspired by Borsoka to really dig into the sources, all of them duck it, and the chronology doesn't match, so I have removed that. No! Inspired by you, and thinking that it was odd that I had "assumed" anything I realised that I hadn't checked the second Kulikowski. We don't know when or where he joined the court, it was at Arles he was raised to caesar, cited to Sozomen. Reverted. Thank you for the prod.

• With this success Constantine established control over most of Gaul and the Alpine passes into Italy: as written, only most of the Alpine passes? Add over if not.

Good point. Added.

• Constantine feared that Honorius's cousins would organise an attack from that direction while troops under Sarus and Stilicho attacked him from Italy in a pincer manoeuvre: being very nit-picky, the troops from Italy couldn't have carried out a pincer manoeuvre if they would only have been one side of the putative pincer: we could maybe say something like "catching him in a pincer manoeuvre"?

Ok.

• With Hispania back under Constantine's control Constans left his new wife at Caesaraugusta and travelled to Arelate (modern Arles) to report to his father. Didymus and Verinianus accompanied him: voluntarily?

A couple of the sources go into moderate detail about this pair, but not on that point. As they "directed a savage guerilla war" and fought two battles I suspect not. But that's OR.

• We have the equal of both the Western and Eastern Emperors but the eastern emperor, Arcadius, died: capitalisation?

Not IMO. The first is using "the Western and Eastern Emperors" in lieu of their names; the second is describing Arcadius as an emperor, not referring to him as the Emperor Arcadius.

• The Roman establishment, led by the senior bureaucrat Olympius, worked to oppose Stilicho: er... which Roman, exactly?

You don't like that paraphrase? Changed to "Much of Honorius's court".

• The troops mutinied, slaughtering Stilicho's supporters but respecting the person of the Emperor: suggest being more explicit about what you mean by "respecting the person of the emperor": did they do anything with/to him?

Not that the source notes: "no insult had been offered to him". Other sources say even less, which I wouldn't have thought was possible.

• Constantius took over Stilicho's role as the main power in the Western Empire and generalissimo: sounds a bit tabloid-y, if you don't mind my saying.

"Generalissimo"? But it is precisely the correct word "A supreme commander of the armed forces of a country, especially one who is also a political leader."

Hi again UC. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It does mean that, but I'm not convinced it's generally used in professional, formal writing. It does also smack a bit of anachronism here. Perhaps "supreme military commander" would be better? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Just from the four papers I have electronically rather than on paper. Kulikowski 2000, p 326 "his regent, the generalissimo Stilicho"; p 330 "was pursued by the generalissimo through the whole course of his regency". Wijnendaele 2018 p 269 "the generalissimo’s real intention was to usurp imperial power"; p 273 "what finally brought the western generalissimo down was". Searching through Google, Heather uses generalissimo at least seven times. Also J M O’Flynn's 1983 book, published by the University of Alberta, is actually called Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire. For several dozen other HQ uses have a browse through here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I'll defer -- if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hi UndercoverClassicist, your latest batch of queries having been dealt with, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I still see a couple outstanding: Jerome, Alpine passes, the replaced commander, and the importance of Constantine's name. Don't imagine they'll take much fixing, but for form's sake I'll let you get to that before passing judgement. Actually, thinking of another: is "heir apparent" the right term, instead of just "heir"? "Apparent" implies a rule-based agnatic succession that I don't think we really mean to here: in theory, if he'd appointed a woman as caesar, that wouldn't be a statement that she would only be heir until and unless he had a son. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry UndercoverClassicist, somehow I didn't notice your comebacks on my responses. Now all dealt with. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support: all happy here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jon698

Will make comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are my comments below @Gog the Mild:. Just type your response within the () I placed after each comment.

• Could "his fellows acclaimed him as emperor" be changed to "his fellow soldiers acclaimed him as emperor" (Done.)
• I made some edits to the lead to be more similar to that of Constantine III (Western Roman emperor), which is a FA. Can you tell me your thoughts on it? Link to it here. (I am familiar with the Constantine III article, I wrote 70% of it and took it to GAN in 2018 and FAC two years ago. I rewrote 90% of Constans and took it to GAN at the same time as the latter. Any changes to the lead for this article from the one for that article are deliberate. I started to go into detail, but it may be more useful for me to check that you are familiar with MOS:LEAD and to ask what your intention behind the rearranging of the information is? Thanks.)
• Could the image of the Solidus of Honorius be added to the article with text like "Constans II and his father stood in opposition to Honorius from 407 to 409, but Constantine III was later recognized as co-emperor by Honorius." (Done.)

Jon698 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of UndercoverClassicist above as well. Jon698 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jon698 and apologies for taking so long to get back to you about your comments. I appreciate the input and have responded above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: After re-reading the current lead, I have no problems with it. I do not have any further comments at this time so support. Jon698 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Source review

I will be attempting to do a source review. I've done a couple FAC source reviews in the past but generally I focus on formatting and such and then move onto spot checks.IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused by your citation style. It looks like some of the books you referenced have publishers listed and others do not. Is there a reason for this? If not could you either add publishers to the refs without or remove the publishers to make things more consistent?

Ok, you've got me. I can't see any books without publishers. Could you point me at them? Thanks.

• All sources look appropriately reliable for the topic.
• I will now attempt a source spot check.
  • Ashe 1996 is verified
  • Birley, Anthony (2005) is verified
  • Bury, J. B. (1889) verified
  • Drinkwater, J. F. (1998) verified
  • Eltonn [2] is giving me a 404 error

I can't find him anywhere. Searching for that paper is one reason I took so long to reply. Still, he is not needed, his main role in the article was to demonstrate "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I have removed his single cite - it is fully covered by Drinkwater.

• • I'm wondering if Heather 2005, pp. 236, 241–242, 245, 251–257. could be cleaned up a bit to not have as many page numbers just as I found it pretty hard to verify this information but if this is just the best way to cite this then ignore me

Well, it's accurate, but it is a mouthful. Broken up somewhat. I anticipate complaints from the "lumpers", but I've had worse.

• • Heather, Peter (2005) verified
  • Kulikowski, Michael (2000). Verified
  • Wijnendaele, Jeroen W. P. (2018). Verified

That's all I have for now. Ping me when you are able to get back to me on my feedback! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi IntentionallyDense and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Your queries all, I think, addressed above. The one unresolved issue is your query about missing publishers - see above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My bad on the publishers thing. I think I had gotten confused with some of the single word publishers, thinking they were somehow locations and didn't verify. Pass for the source review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Reserving a spot, will review over the next 2-3 days. Constantine ✍ 07:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Background

• large groups from Germanic tribes is 'from' correct/deliberate here?

I have just reread the source, and it seems a reasonable summary to me. (Yes, it was very deliberate; later the same source considers at least some of them to have metamorphosed into tribes.) I could probably find a source which considers some or all of these groups to be tribes at the moment they crossed the Rhine if you have philosophical objections to "from".

• groups from Germanic tribes, whom the Romans referred to generically as "barbarians" hmm, this may raise the impression that only the Germans were called "barbarians" and others, e.g. the Picts, not.

I don't see why. I mean, the Greeks referred to the Illyrians to be barbarians, but had lots of referring left over for other groups. Or I may refer to an editor as an idiot; is anyone going to assume they are the only one I so consider?

That is assuming a reader knows what barbarians are supposed to be in the first place. My personal experience in academia suggests this assumption to be incorrect. But will not insist. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• link either leading general or commander-in-chief to magister utriusque militiae?

I would much rather not. It seems both well into WP:OL and marginally Easter eggy.

Fair enough. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• suffered raids by the Scoti, Saxons and Picts add that these raids were both by land and sea? This makes the importance of the coastal defences mentioned later on clearer.

Ah yes. Done.

• wars with the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths the average reader may wonder a) who these are (if they are Germanic barbarians or anything else) and b) where these wars took place. It is obliquely mentioned later (a large contingent had left to fight on the continent four years earlier) but it might help to be clearer about it.

Good point. Tweaked to "for wars with invading groups of the Germanic tribes the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths in Italy and the western Balkans"

• {{green|was a common soldier[note 3]}} the footnote seems to me to be redundant; just citing the source here would be enough.

Ok.

• Link Roman defensive works to Limes (Roman Empire)?

Ok. Done.

• The central Western Roman authorities add something like 'in Italy' or 'in Ravenna'?

Done.

Life

• started slaughtering Goths: the wives and children of their fellow soldiers that Goths were serving in the Roman army may come as a surprise as it is not directly mentioned. Perhaps add after first mentioning the Germanic barbarians that the Romans also heavily recruited these barbarians into the Imperial armies? This would also explain why there is an Imperial general named 'Sarus the Goth'.

Done. (In the first paragraph of Background.)

• It probably should also be mentioned that Stilicho himself was of barbarian descent, which is partly why he was opposed by the Roman establishment? Alternatively the section about Stilicho's downfall could be trimmed down and combined with the anti-Gothic purge without going into too much detail.

I am really not keen on going into Stilicho's origins. The sources don't stress it - some suggest that insofar as it was an obstacle to him usurping the throne it made him more acceptable - and his main high level opponents had enough reason to want him out without considering it.

I could cut the whole paragraph commencing "On 1 May 408 the emperor of ...", perhaps[?] replacing it which a brief sentence stating that the empire was in chaos. But I don't want to. The paragraph in question allows me to "show don't tell" the chaos at the heart of government which allowed - one could argue "compelled" - Constantine to attempt to build a dynasty through Constans. And more directly led to Constantine's (more-or-less) legitimisation and so Constans elevation to co-emperor.

Fair enough. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• The troops mutinied, slaughtering Stilicho's supporters but respecting the person of the Emperor. This leaves a bit unclear in whose support the troops mutinied.

From memory, they didn't mutiny in anyone's support; they mutinied against Stilicho. I have the source out still and it (carefully?) avoids that issue, just stating what happened. If Peter Heather is happy to leave a reader unclear on this point, I am not inclined to argue.

• the reverse depicts Roma holding a symbol of victory perhaps 'the reverse depicts the personification of Rome/Rome personified holding a winged Victory'?

Done.

Aftermath

• clerical office may be confused with a scribal position; I assume it is meant he became a monk?
  • @Gog the Mild: This was not answered. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Tweaked to "and his being ordained".

• In 413 a Visigoth army overlinking

I agree and removed; but just checking you are aware of the new(ish) "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there", which gives a bit more freedom than there used to be.

Thank you for the heads up, indeed I was not aware of it. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• There is a mixture of modern names for localities (like Arles or Saragossa) where the ancient names are not mentioned at all, and ancient ones (like Ticinum or Tarraco) where the modern name is given at least once. Is there a reason?

I follow the sources - which have always been inconsistent (Rome instead of Roma etc). I have no personal issue with overriding the consensus of the sources in favour of consistency, which I am usually an enthusiast for.

Hmmm. For me two things argue in favour of consistent use of the ancient name (with modern in parentheses). One is a general preference for avoiding anachronisms (Roma/Rome is trivial and falls under common name, but Ticinum/Pavia for example is not) and the other is that the article already uses this form a couple of times, but inconsistently. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. (I think I got them all.)

• Constantine's empire seems an echo of the 3rd-century Gallic Empire. Should this be mentioned? Is this a topic discussed by the sources?

I haven't noticed any as I have read the sources. It is quite possible that there is a reference or two buried in the HQ RSs, but even if I were to find some I would be loath to include them - this is a biography of Constans, not of his father's empire. The relevance would be somewhat stretched.

Makes sense, just checking in case something was missed. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Burns 1994 has inconsistent capitalization in the title

Thank you, fixed.

• Volume 2 of the PLRE is by Martindale alone

So it is. Bless you. Takes me back to when you were ticking me off for over using Norwich!

We've come a long way since then ;). Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

A fine article, as usual, mostly nitpicks here and there. Constantine ✍ 08:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Constantine. All of your points now addressed, although not all of them agreed with. While you are here, I have nominated Punic Wars for FA today. Can I tempt you? (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Punic Wars/archive2) :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: a couple of minor issues left, but nothing to hold off my Support vote for the nomination IMO. Nice, clear, concise, and probably the most complete single treatment of the topic. Constantine ✍ 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine. Many thanks for this. Both outstanding points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• Is caesar actually a position? From reading that article, it seems like it was a title, not a formal position

According to UndercoverClassicist it was a job rather than a title.

• " Stilicho needed military manpower..." - would be simpler to just say "needed soldiers"

Sure. Done.

• Move the link to Roman Britain to the earlier instance in the preceding paragraph

Oops. Done.

• "a contemporary described it" - do we have a name?

We do. I really didn't want to add yet another name to this tangled tale, but as you are the second reviewer to enquire, added.

• When I was an undergrad many moons ago, I got a paper back all marked up with all of the "was"es and "were"s crossed out (with the advice to vary my wording more, and to avoid passive voice) - I still try to keep that in mind. There are a lot of them in the article, and some could be replaced, for example:
  • "During this period Roman Britain was suffering raids by the Scoti, Saxons and Picts." - could be reworded to: "During this period, the Scoti, Saxons and Picts raided Roman Britain"

Ho, hum. More activity injected into the prose. 8 x was and 1 x were removed. Although to my eye a frequent result is to over complicate the prose. And "was" still occurs a lot.

• • "He also failed to meet the troops' expectations and was killed after four months." -> "He also failed to meet the troops' expectations and they killed him after four months."

I suppose that it is clear from context that not all of the troops physically killed him, so done. (If I were copy editing this I would normally switch this to the original as shorter and clearer.)

• "Hispania was a stronghold of the Theodosius and his son, Honorius" - the "the" is wrong here (perhaps you had originally left the link to the house of Theodosius unpiped?) but it's also odd to hear about Theodosius again, since he was long dead by 408

Hey - background is good. But gone and rephrased.

• "When Sarus seemed on the verge of ending Constantine's revolt" - who is Sarus? He's not previously mentioned (I see he's introduced later, but it's still not clear exactly what his relationship with Honorius was). And the jump from Honorius' partisans being unwilling or unable to oppose Constantine to Sarus nearly ending his attempted coup is very jarring

Quite right. Thank you. Somehow I got a whole paragraph out of order. I have also moved a sentence so as to explain the rising in Hispania prior to discussing Constans travelling there with the army. Which seems to make chronological sense.

Yes, that reads much better now (but that paragraph has three sentences in a row now that begin with "When" - you could change the first one to "At the time..." (or similar) and the last one could be changed to "Following Sarus' withdrawal..." (or you could say "Even after Sarus withrew..." to highlight that his defeat did not reduce their resolve).

Gah! Thanks Parsecboy, 2 x When rephrased. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't you love when you get that FAC tunnel vision - "someone said fix X, so I'll fix X, but nevermind problem Y that I just created..." Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Usually late at night. Thanks Parsecboy. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy, it needed that. (Sadly) All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support now, great work as usual Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

File:Siliqua Constans II Arelate (obverse).jpg - ancient coin, VTRS for modern photograph, OK

File:Theodosius I's empire.png - user created, freely licensed, RS support content, OK

File:Roman Gaul - AD 400.png - user created, freely, licensed, content sourced, OK

File:Solidus of Constantine III (west).png - ancient coin, VTRS for modern photograph, OK

File:Solidus Honorius (obverse).jpg - ancient coin, VTRS for modern photograph, OK

File:Siliqua Constans II Arelate.jpg - ancient coin, VTRS for modern photograph, OK

The source links aren't the best for some of the coin images, but given the nature of these as apparently related to the onlin auction, I reckon the VTRS stuff verifies that the image was originally produced by those people and that it's under that license. So pass on the image review. Hog Farm _talk 20:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

MS

• Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• but suuffered a defeat and withdrew to Arles. There is a typo in this sentence.

Oops. Fixed.

• defeated Constans, who retreated north and was again defeated This version avoids repetition of "defeated" too closely.

I don't think I understand your point. The close repetition of "defeated" is deliberate. Are you saying you would prefer one of them to be tweaked?

Yes.

Done.

Background

• File:Roman Gaul - AD 400.png might have an MOS:COLOUR issue.

I see that, but it is that map or nothing.

• Honorius was underage and the leading general Stilicho became hugely influential...

“Highly” is preferred in formal British English when referring to influence or importance. “Hugely” is more colloquial.

Changed.

• Vandals are linked more than once in the same section; it constitutes duplicate linking.

Thank you. Fixed.

Life

• Even with Sarus's withdrewal to Italy, the knowledge of the large new army assembling at Ticinum (modern Pavia)... Pavia could be linked here.

Done, although it smacks of over linking to me.

• Even with Sarus's withdrewal to Italy,... A typo in this sentence.

Fixed.

• Those Goths who could fled north and joined Alaric, greatly increasing his fighting strength. "Fled" could be changed to "flee" for proper tense agreement with "could."

I have inserted a comma instead - "Those Goths who could, fled north and joined Alaric, greatly increasing his fighting strength."

• They set up court at Tarraco (modern Tarragona). You could link Tarragona in this sentence.

Done, although again it seems WP:OL to me. ("A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked.")

• Eventually Gerontius reached a arrangement... The article "an" should be used before this arrangement.

Good spot. Done.

• Gerontius, concerned that he would not be able to withstand the military force Constans could bring to bear, so attempted to incite the barbarians who had entered Gaul late in 406 against Constantine. The "so" before "attempted" is unnecessary and out of context.

Removed.

Read up to just before the "Aftermath" section. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by MSincccc, I appreciate it. Your comments to date are responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions, Gog. A fine article, indeed. Support. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Could I have permission to start another? This has three supports, image and source passes, and two other general reviews ongoing - with nothing perturbing thrown up - and has been open for 17 days. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

For sure. FrB.TG (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• ...the de facto commander-in-chief... Is "de facto" necessary?

Given that he wasn't the actual commander in chief, I think so. Otherwise we would be misleading the readers.

• ...from incursions of large groups from Germanic tribes... Not only Germanic tribes invaded the empires (Alans, Huns, Scoti, Picts, etc).

True, although the Huns hadn't turned up yet. "The Scoti, Saxons and Picts" turn up two sentences later.

• The Huns first invaded the Eastern Roman Empire in 395. I would rephrase.

Reference to the Eastern Empire removed.

• ...a large contingent had left to fight on the continent four years earlier... Four years? I would say "on Stilicho's command" or something similar.

The sentence is explaining why the Roman soldiers in Britain were dissatisfied. They weren't dissatisfied because some named individual had ordered their colleagues away, they were dissatisfied because they had been left understrength for so long.

• True, but the reference to "four years" contradicts a previous sentence that implies four or five years (401 or 402)

Good point. (Later.) Ok. The source which I use to cite the lack of pay also specifies the year the troops left - "... withdrawals of troops followed in 402 to support Stilicho's campaign against the Visigoths ..." - unlike Snyder, who says either 401 or 402. So I have changed the cites and specified 402, four years before 406, as when the northern British troops left.

• ...whom they appointed emperor...appointed Gratian... Appointed or proclaimed/elected?

The source quotes a contemporary source "enthroned Marius ... brought forward Gratian ... and made Constantine his successor." "Appointed" seemed a reasonable paraphrase for these, but I am happy to consider alternatives.

• A link to Alans?

Oops. Done.

• ..., perhaps near Mainz... Delete.

Done.

• Attribute the assumption in note 2 to a scholar.

Why? It is usual to write articles in Wikipedia's voice and cite them to the scholarly source, as I have done here.

• ...Roman Army of Gaul...Army of Italy...Army of Italy...Army of Gaul... Why "Army"?

The first source to mention an army wrote "Army", so I standardised on it. But it is probably better to go with army, so I have lower cased them all.

• ...central Western Roman authorities... Could you rephrase it? ("Western Roman government/imperial court/central authorities/..."?)

Yes, much better. Done.

• ...at the time his father rebelled,... I would delete it.
• Delink Constantine the Great in section "Caesar".

Why?

• He is already linked in the previous section.

D'oh! Done.

• ...He was swiftly married ... I would rephrase to make clear that Constans II is referred ("The ex-monk/ex-monk turned caesar was swiftly married...")

Yes. Done.

• Do we know his wife's name and background?

We know nothing at all about her personally, her origins, or her fate.

• Could this be stated in the article?

I am loath to include things that I can't cite. And while I have seen no source offer any details at all about his wife, not even guesses, neither have I seen one which says we know nothing. So, irritating as it is, I think we are stuck where we are.

• The Western Roman emperor, Honorius, and his commander-in-chief Stilicho,... Why do you introduce them again? I would maximum say "Emperor Honorius and Stilicho...".

Rephrased.

• I would radically shorten the second and third paragraph of section "Caesar" because they contain no information about the article's subject.

If this (or any) article were restricted to information only directly about its subject it would be very much shorter and completely incomprehensible. I think those two paragraphs strike a reasonable balance between supplying a reader with sufficient background to make sense of what happens to Constans in a summary style and overloading them with interesting but not really relevant information. FAs need to neglect no major facts or details and to place the subject in context.

• ...returned to Arles... We are not informed that he had stayed in the city. Link Arles.

Good spot. Rephrased and linked.

• ...and travelled to Arelate... Arles should be introduced here.

• By May 408 Constantine had captured Arles and made it his capital,... I would say, "By May 408/By this time, Constantine had made Arles his capital..." Or do you want to suggest that Constans returned (?) to Arles in May 408?

I would like to retain "captured". Rereading the sources, it is not explicitly stated that Constans got to Arles before being sent to Hispania. One notes that the chronology "is not entirely clear". So I have removed "returned".

• Heros was installed as a pliant archbishop of Arles in spite of local opposition. I would delete it together with note 4.

That whole section trimmed, names of two officials removed and two footnotes deleted. See what you think. While rereading with your comments as a whole in mind I have also deleted another footnote as interesting, but not that relevant to Constans.

• ..the emperor of the Eastern Empire, Arcadius... Why do you introduce him again? I would maximum say "Emperor Arcadius/The eastern emperor Arcadius...".

Done.

• The Visigoths in retaliation continued to roam across Italy and extort vast sums from the city of Rome. Alaric elevated his own emperor, the senator Priscus Attalus, to no avail. On 24 August 410 the Visigoths entered Rome and pillaged the city for three days. I would radically shorten and consolidate these sentences.

Done.

• Constantine's head was mounted on a pole and presented to Honorius on 18 September. Constantius withdrew in the face of Jovinus's forces. In 413 a Visigoth army, now allied with Honorius, suppressed Jovinus's revolt. Constantius took over Stilicho's role as the main power in the Western Empire and generalissimo. He was broadly able to recover the situation for the central authorities and to enable reconstruction. Gaul was pacified, the barbarians in Hispania were in large part subdued, the Visigoths were settled on land in Aquitaine as Roman allies. However, Roman rule never returned to Britain after Constantine stripped its defences. I would delete all these sentences for they had nothing to do with the article's subject.

On the one hand, no they haven't. On the other it is normal to tie up outstanding details for the reader in an aftermath section, little of which usually directly relates to the subject of the article. On the third hand, rereading I agree that "Constantius withdrew in the face of Jovinus's forces. In 413 a Visigoth army, now allied with Honorius, suppressed Jovinus's revolt." is going too far off track, and so have deleted it.

Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You are being very generous with your reviewing time to my articles Borsoka and I appreciate it. Your comments above are, I think, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, because I am lazy. :) I know your articles are among those with less problems. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:-)

Ok Borsoka, the last couple of minor items tidied up, I think. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

An interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.