Clive Foss

Emperors named Constantine

In: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 161, année 2005 pp. 93-102.

Abstract
Summary. — The Byzantine habit of naming emperors and members of their family Constantine has been a constant source of
confusion for numismatists and historians. Although scholars have long accepted that there were eleven of that name, a closer
look reveals that there were actually twenty two Constantines, including children and relatives who never held independent
power. Eliminating those would reduce the list to fourteen who actually reigned, but it seems unlikely that the accepted practice
can be changed without introducing more confusion.

Résumé
Resume. — L'habitude byzantine de nommer Constantin les empereurs et les membres de leur famille a été une source
permanente de confusion pour les numismates et les historiens. Bien que les érudits aient longtemps accepté l'idée qu'il y avait
onze personnages ayant porté ce nom, un examen plus approfondi montre qu'il y eut en fait vingt-deux Constantins, en incluant
enfants et parents qui n'exercèrent pas le pouvoir de manière indépendante. Les éliminer réduit la liste à quatorze personnages
qui régnèrent effectivement, mais il paraît peu probable que la pratique actuelle puisse être modifiée sans augmenter le risque de
confusion.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Foss Clive. Emperors named Constantine. In: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 161, année 2005 pp. 93-102.

doi : 10.3406/numi.2005.2594

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/numi_0484-8942_2005_num_6_161_2594
 Clive Foss*

Emperors named Constantine

Summary. — The Byzantine habit of naming emperors and members of their family Cons
tantine has been a constant source of confusion for numismatists and historians. Although
scholars have long accepted that there were eleven of that name, a closer look reveals that there
were actually twenty two Constantines, including children and relatives who never held inde
pendent power. Eliminating those would reduce the list to fourteen who actually reigned, but it
seems unlikely that the accepted practice can be changed without introducing more confusion.

Resume. — L'habitude byzantine de nommer Constantin les empereurs et les membres de

leur famille a été une source permanente de confusion pour les numismates et les historiens. Bien
que les érudits aient longtemps accepté l'idée qu'il y avait onze personnages ayant porté ce nom,
un examen plus approfondi montre qu'il y eut en fait vingt-deux Constantins, en incluant enfants
et parents qui n'exercèrent pas le pouvoir de manière indépendante. Les éliminer réduit la liste à
quatorze personnages qui régnèrent effectivement, mais il paraît peu probable que la pratique
actuelle puisse être modifiée sans augmenter le risque de confusion.

Rulers of the Christian Roman - or Byzantine - empire naturally and fr

equently took the name Constantine. It showed their connection with the founder
of the state and its capital, and often advertised their real or presumptive role
as its restorers. That the name was used from the very beginning to the very end
of the empire is well known, but less clear is how often it appears, and how its
bearers should be counted. Was the last Byzantine ruler Constantine XI, XII,
XIII or something else? This is not simply an antiquarian question, for the numb
ering has long caused confusion, largely because of the Byzantine habit of
sharing real or nominal power with their brothers or sons. Under these circums
tances, it would be useful to determine how many emperors actually bore this
name, and how many of them should be recognised in a canon of emperors,
however that term is to be defined.
The present work derived from a simple, seemingly trivial, question: who
was Constantine III? It was provoked by reading Kaegi's Heraclius, where the
author uses this designation for the son of Heraclius (co-regent 613-641, sole
ruler in 641), otherwise known as Heraclius Constantine.1 Confusion was com
pounded by seeing that Treadgold's recent history gives this as an alternative
name for Constans II (641-668).2 Nevertheless, I seemed to recollect that there

* History Department, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057 (USA) cff@george-

town.edu
1 W. Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge, 2000, p. 200.
2 W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford, 1997, p. 935 n. 30.

RN 2005, p. 93-102
94 Clive Foss

already was a Constantine III, centuries earlier in the West (usurper in Gaul and
Spain 408-41 1). Hence, the present question: not only who was Constantine III,
but how should the whole lot of them be numbered? At present, there is a con
sensus to count eleven Constantines as emperors, as in the standard works of
Ostrogorsky and Treadgold. Yet the valuable manual of Grumel names twelve,
while earlier writers have quite different counts, manifesting a natural confu
sionthat arises from the large number of homonymous emperors.3 This confus
ion,incidentally, did not afflict the Byzantines themselves who, as far as I can
determine, did not number their rulers but used nicknames or patronymics to
distinguish one from another.
Charles Du Cange, the first modern historian of Byzantium, in his study of
the chronology, relationships and coinage of the emperors, followed the Byzant
ine model by eschewing numbering altogether.4 Edward Gibbon, on the other
hand, counted thirteen Constantines by including the sons of Romanus I and
Constantine (X) Ducas.5 His contemporary, Charles Lebeau, however - at least
in the revised edition of his massive work published in 1836 - adhered to the
eleven that has become canonical.6
For numismatists, the question has been more complicated, since they are
obliged to deal with the large number of Constantines who figure on the coinage
though their role in history may have been minimal. In the first serious work on
Byzantine numismatics, Félicien de Saulcy labeled the last Byzantine emperor
as Constantine XIV7 He had included the sons of Leo V and Basil I, but curi
ously left out any Constantine IX, so that he was actually counting thirteen such
rulers. Justin Sabatier (1862), author of the first comprehensive catalogue of
Byzantine coins, listed fourteen Constantines by including the sons of Leo V,
Theophilus and Basil I.8 By an odd slip, however, he gave the number XIII to
both Ducas (1059-1067) and Dragases (1448-1453). The canonical list of eleven
appears in the catalogue of Warwick Wroth (1908) and all since.9
The coinage, a prime source of contemporary official documents, names a
plethora of Constantines, whom modern works usually leave without numbers
but only awkwardly designate them by their relation to a more senior emperor.
The following list contains all the rulers (in the broadest sense, including Caes
ars and co-emperors of whatever title) that I have been able to identify, appear
ing on coins or in historical sources.

3 V Grumel, La chronologie, Paris, 1958, p. 359.

4 C. Du Fresne, sieur Du Cange, Byzantini historia duplici commentario illustrata, Paris,
1680.
5 E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1788 (and
many later editions).
6 С Lebeau, Histoire du Bas-Empire, Paris, 1824-1836.
7 F. de Saulcy, Essai de classification des suites monétaires byzantines, Metz, 1836.
8 J. Sabatier, Description générale des monnaies byzantines, Paris, 1862.
9 W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum, London,
1908.

RN 2005, p. 93-102
 Emperors named Constantine 95

1) Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Caesar July 306, Augustus Autumn 307-

May 337.
No problem here; everyone recognises Constantine the Great, founder of
Constantinople and patron of Christianity, as the first emperor of that name.
PLRE I Constantinus 4

2) Fl. Claudius (or Julius) Constantinus: Caesar March 317, Augustus

September 337- March or April 340
Son of Constantine I, co-ruler with his brothers Constans and Constantius;
universally recognised.
PLRE I Constantinus 3

3) Fl. Claudius Constantinus: usurper in Gaul and Spain 407-411.

Since he was recognised by the western emperor Honorius in 409 and struck
coins in his own name, he could reasonably be counted as a legitimate empero
r. In any case, usurpers are traditionally counted among the list of emperors
in Roman times. He is usually called Constantine III.
PLRE II Constantinus 21; Grierson and Mays 214-217

[Tiberius Constantinus: Caesar December 574; Augustus September 578-

August 582.
His real name was Tiberius, but he acquired the hopeful name Constantine
when he became Caesar, on the grounds that he would renew the Roman
Empire. He is normally called Tiberius Constantine or Tiberius II, but some of
his coins, including the rare joint issue with his patron Justin II struck for only
ten days in 578, name him Constantinus only: DOC 2, 5-7, 9, 63-65; but note
that the tremisses of Constantinople and Ravenna recognise his other name in
the reverse inscription VICTORIA TIBERI AVG. He is, in other words, best
called Tiberius, and eliminated from this list.
PLRE III Tiberius Constantinus 1]

4) Fl. Heraclius novus Constantinus, son of the emperor Heraclius and co-
ruler with him January 613; sole ruler January-May 641
The trouble starts here. PLRE, DOC and Kaegi refer to this ruler as Cons
tantine III, though Stratos incorrectly names him Constantine II.10 While he
was associated with his father, his full name appears, most notably on the
coinage. Official documents of 638 and 639, however, call him Constantine
alone, as do the coins of his sole reign (if they are correctly attributed). It would
seem reasonable to add him to the list as a Constantine.
PLREIU Heraclius Constantinus 38; DOC 2.1.385-388; PMBZ3101 (Kon-
stantinos III)

10 A. N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. II, Amsterdam, 1972, p. 75-185.

RN2005,p. 93-102
96 Clive Foss

5) Constantinus, son of Heraclius, proclaimed Caesar in 617 when he was

two years old, but apparently died soon after. No documents or coins in his
name are known.
PLRE III Constantinus 34

[Heraclius (II), known as Heraclonas: April?-October? 641

Son of Heraclius and stepbrother of Heraclius Constantine, he is called Her
aclius in official documents as so should correctly be referred to as Heraclius
II.11 Since the chroniclers refer to him by the diminutive Heraclonas, modern
writers usually follow suit.
The only reason he appears here is that the coins assigned to him use only
the name Constantine (the bronzes with the inscription IMPER CONST, DOC
5, have now been shown to be issues of Constans II). This attribution, howeve
r, like that of coins to Heraclius Constantine, is rejected by W. Hahn in MIB
3.123. If it were correct, this would find a place in the present list.
DOC 2.1.389-401; PMBZ2565 (Heraklonas)]

6) Heraclius Constantinus, « Constans II »: grandson of Heraclius: Septem

ber 641 -July 668
This emperor poses the most serious problem. Baptised as Heraclius, he
assumed the name Constantine on his accession and is always so named on his
coins and official documents. The nickname Constans was apparently in pop
ular use, and thus appears in the chroniclers, followed by modern writers. Logi
cally, he should appear on the list under the name Constantine. This is espe
cially appropriate since the majority of his bronze coins, struck from 641 to
668 bear the obverse inscription en touto nika, « in this [sign, shalt thou] con
quer », the motto that Constantine the Great saw in his vision of the cross
before his conquest of Rome. This inscription makes sense only if the emperor
was in fact called Constantine.
DOC 2.2.402-51 1; PMBZ 3692 (Konstans II, with full references)

7) Constantine IV, co-emperor with his father « Constans » April 654, senior
Augustus (with his brothers) October 668, sole ruler autumn 681 -July 685
No problem here; this emperor is universally known as Constantine.
DOC 2.512-567; PMBZ 3702

8) Constantine V, co-emperor with his father Leo III March 720, sole ruler
June 741 -September 775.
Again no problem; universally agreed.
DOC 3.290-324; PMBZ 3703

1 1 As does Stratos, op. cit., p. 1 86.

RN2005,p. 93-102
 Emperors named Constantine 97

9) Constantine VI, co-ruler with his father Leo IV April 776, emperor
September 780- August 797, but under the regency or domination of his mothe
r Irene (who appears with him on the coins) for most of his reign.
No problem here.
DOC 3.336-346; PMBZ 3704

10) Constantine, co-ruler with his father Leo V, December 813-December

820.
His titles on the coins are despotes (gold of Constantinople), basileus (si
lver of Constantinople), or none at all (issues of Syracuse); this may imply a
subordinate position, but see DOC 3.177-179 for these titles. His original name
was Smbat; he was mutilated and exiled when his father was murdered, and
disappears from history.
Although he was officially crowned and proclaimed as Augustus, this Cons
tantine (like several to follow) never ruled in his own name.
DOC 3.371-386

11) Constantine, son of the emperor Theophilus, co-ruler for a short time in
830 or 831; died as a child.
He appears on his father's coins, either with the title despotes (gold) or no
title (bronze). Coins that show him together with an emperor Michael have
been taken by Prof. Grierson as a memorial issue.
An insignificant figure, who never exercised power, but appears on the
coins.
DOC 3.406-410, 425-451 passim.

12) Constantine, son of Basil I, co-ruler January 868?-September 879

This is a more substantial figure, who participated in military campaigns
with his father, but died before him. He is also named as Augustus in the acts
of the eighth ecumenical council. Coins show him with his father and various
members of his family, usually giving him the title basileus.
DOC 3.473-506

13) Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Augustus May 908-November 959,

but only in sole power after January 945.
A complicated reign, with many co-rulers, notably Romanus I Lecapenus
and his sons; but universally recognized as the legitimate emperor.
DOC 3.513-515, 426-573

14) Constantine Lecapenus, son of Romanus I and co-ruler with his father
and brothers as well as the legitimate Constantine Porphyrogenitus December
924-December 944; co-ruler with his brother Stephen and the Porphyrogenitus
December 944- January 945.

RN2005, p. 93-102
98 Clive Foss

During the latter period, the brothers had deposed their father and hoped to
maintain control, even effacing the legitimate emperor; they soon succumbed
to a coup, however, and were sent to a monastery. This ruler, therefore, never
enjoyed sole power.
He appears on the coinage with his father, brother and Constantine Porphy-
rogenitus.
DOC3. 526, 528, 537, 556-557

15) Constantine VIII, brother of Basil II and nominally со ruler with him
March 962-December 1025; sole ruler till November 1028.
This obscure figure, who only had a brief moment of full control, appears
regularly on his brother's coinage, and by himself on those issued during his
sole reign.
DOC 3.707-710

16) Constantine IX Monomachus, June 1042-January 1055

Brought to power by Zoe, daughter of Basil II, whom he married; during his
reign, no coins were struck in her name, but in his alone.
DOC 3.733-747

17) Constantine X Ducas, November 1059- May 1067

No problem here; some of his coins also portray his wife Eudocia Macrem-
bolitissa.
DOC 3.764-778

[The fourth son of Constantine X and Eudocia, whose name is inscribed on

the coinage of his mother and stepfather Romanus IV (1068-1071) in the
abbreviated form K(0N, appears variously in the sources as Constantine or
Constantius. Since scholarly opinion seems to favor Constantius as the correct
name (though the evidence is quite ambiguous), he need not be included here.
DOC 3.779 n.2]

18) Constantine, son of Michael VII, named emperor soon after his birth in
1074, was officially co-ruler with his father until the latter's fall from power in
1078. He was restored to grace and to the position of (nominal) co-emperor by
Alexius Comnenus in 1081, then removed definitively around 1087.
During both periods in office, he appears with the title basileus in docu
ments, but never figures on the coinage. He therefore belongs to the category
of princes who reigned but did not rule.
DOC 3.799 n. 9

19) Constantine Lascaris, April 1204-Spring 1205.

This is the most difficult case. The key text is the history of Nicetas Choni-
ates who relates that on the night of 12/13 April 1204, when the crusaders had

RN 2005, p. 93-102
 Emperors named Constantine 99

broken into the City and the emperor Alexius V had fled, two young aristocrats,
Constantine Ducas and Constantine Lascaris, entered the church of St. Sophia,
where a crowd was assembled.12 Seeing that the imperial power had disap
peared, they contested for supreme power. The lot fell on Lascaris who, howe
ver, refused to accept the imperial regalia, but went rushing off in a futile
effort to rally resistance. Scholars agree that this means the crown was offered
to Lascaris, but most believe that he refused it. B. Sinogowitz, however, by
drawing on Latin as well as Greek sources, makes a very strong case that Las
caris was indeed acclaimed emperor and even ruled in parts of western Asia
Minor (though the sources are silent on this) for about a year, till he disap
peared from history, presumably killed in battle.13 The balance of the evidence
seems to incline toward recognizing Lascaris as a legitimate, if ephemeral
emperor, the first of the dynasty « of Nicaea » established by his brother
Theodore (1205-1222). Probably, therefore, to be accepted here, even though
no documents or coins naming him are known. He is, however, not recognised
as emperor in the study of this period by N. Oikonomides nor by Hendy in
DOC 4.425-447, nor in the recent textbook of Treadgold. On the other hand,
the valuable Regesten of Dôlger/Wirth include him as an emperor, with the
name Constantine XI.14

20) Constantine Ducas Angelus Comnenus Palaeologus, half-brother of

Michael VIII, under whom he served from 1259 with the high titles of Sebas-
tocrator and Caesar - that is, a subordinate co-emperor. He was an active fig
ure, commanding armies and leading an attack on the Peloponnesus. He died
(as a monk) before 1275. Coins were not struck in his name.
To be counted as a Caesar, not as an emperor.
PIP 9.21498

21) Constantine Ducas Comnenus Palaeologus, son of Michael VIII, who,

before 1280, was given a rank higher than Despot but lower than Basileus - that
according to John VI Cantacuzenus, who gave the same title to his son
Matthew. Unlike Matthew, however, coins were not issued in the name of Cons
tantine, but a lead seal gives him the title Despot.15 His brother Andronicus II
deprived him of power and imprisoned him in 1293; he died in 1306.
He may be regarded as a subordinate co-emperor.
PLP 9.21492

12 Nicetas Choniates, Historia, ed. J. Van Dieten, Berlin, 1975, p. 57 If.

13 B. Sinogowitz, Uber das byzantinische Kaisertum nach dem vierten Kreuzzuge, BZ, 45,
1952, pp. 345-356.
14 N. Oikonomides, La décomposition de l'empire byzantin à la veille de 1204..., XVe Con
grès international d'Études Byzantines, Rapports et co-rapports, I, 1976, p. 23; Treadgold, op.
cit. 966 n. 8; F. Dôlger, P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrômischen Reiches von
565-1453. 3. Teil, Regesten von 1204-1282, Munich, 1977, p. 1.
15 G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, Basel, 1972-1985, vol. I. no. 2758.

RN2005,p. 93-102
100 Clive Foss

22) Constantine XI Dragases, the last Byzantine emperor, January 1449-

May 1453.
Universally recognised, his coins have only recently been discovered.
DOC 5.235-238

A table will make the difference between this list and the conventionally
accepted number of Constantines clear at a glance (dates in parentheses indi
cate those who never reigned as Augusti; for generally recognised emperors,
the dates are those of their sole rule):

No. Date Coins Accepted numbering

1 306-337 * Constantine I
2 337-340 * Constantine II
3 407-411 * Constantine III
4 613-641 * Heraclius Constantine; Constantine III
5 (6 17-?)
6 641-668 * Constans II
7 668-685 * Constantine IV
8 741-775 * Constantine V
9 780-797 * Constantine VI
10 *
(813-820)
11 *
(830)
12 868-879 *
13 908-959 * Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
14 924-945 *
15 1025-1028 * Constantine VIII
16 1042-1055 * Constantine IX Monomachus
17 1059-1067 * Constantine X Ducas
18 1074-1078;
1081-1087
19 1204-1205
20 1259-1275
21 C1280-1293
22 1449-1453 * Constantine XI Dragases

How many Constantines, then, should be counted? A pedantically complete

list would include all 22, but it would seem more reasonable to confine the con
cept of emperor to those who were acknowledged as Augusti or the equivalent
- that is, who held supreme power, either by themselves or jointly with a rela
tive. It should also apply to those who appear with imperial titles on the coinage

RN2005,p. 93-102
 Emperors named Constantine 101

or in official documents. In that case, the children nos. 5 and 1 1 could be

immediately eliminated, along with no. 20 and perhaps 21 (a more ambiguous
case, since he held a title used by emperors, and the analogous example of
Mathew Cantacuzenus struck coins). That produce eighteen Constantines who
held some real or fictive imperial power, and were officially recognised. The
names would correspond to the Byzantine practice of recognizing those who
held the supreme title, even without the supreme power. The list would be long
and in part unfamiliar:

Constantine I, the Great 306-337

Constantine II 337-340
Constantine III, Usurper in Gaul, 407-41 1
Constantine IV, son of Heraclius, 641
Constantine V [Constans II], 641-668
Constantine VI [IV], 668-685
Constantine VII [V], 742-775
Constantine VIII [VI], 780-797
Constantine IX, son of Leo V, 813-820
Constantine X, son of Basil I, 868-879
Constantine XI [VII] Porphyrogenitus, 913-959
Constantine XII Lecapenus, 924-945
Constantine XIII [VIII], 1025-1028
Constantine XIV [IX] Monomachus, 1042-1055
Constantine XV [X] Ducas, 1059-1067
Constantine XVI, son of Michael VII, 1074-1078, 1081-1087
Constantine XVII Lascaris, 1204-1205
Constantine XVIII [XI] Dragases, 1449-1453

The practice of scholars, however, has tended to grant the title emperor only
to those who actually reigned, eliminating co-emperors whose power was only
nominal, never exercised in their own names. That would produce a shorter and
perhaps more realistic list, as follows:

Constantine I, the Great 306-337

Constantine II 337-340
Constantine III, Usurper in Gaul, 407-41 1
Constantine IV, son of Heraclius, 641
Constantine V [Constans II], 641-668
Constantine VI [IV], 668-685
Constantine VII [V], 742-775
Constantine VIII [VI], 780-797
Constantine IX [VII] Porphyrogenitus, 913-959
Constantine X [VIII], 1025-1028
Constantine XI [IX] Monomachus, 1042-1055

RN2005,p. 93-102
102 Clive Foss

Constantine XII [X] Ducas, 1059-1067

Constantine XIII Lascaris, 1204-1205
Constantine XIV [XI] Dragases, 1449-1453

This shorter list would correspond to scholarly practice and to the Byzant
ine realities, but differs from the currently accepted version. Since that is so
well entrenched, it seems unlikely that anyone will want to change the numb
ering (and thus introduce potentially even more confusion), but at least this
short survey will have shown where the problems lie, even if no acceptable
solution is at hand.

Abbreviations
DOC: P. Grierson et al, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbart
on Oaks Collection, Washington, DC, 1966-1999.
P. Grierson, and M. Mays: Catalogue of the Late Roman Coins in the Dumb
arton Oaks Collection, Washington, DC, 1992.
MIB: W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini, Vienna, 1973-81.
PLRE: A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale and J. Morris, The Prosopography
of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1971—
PLP: Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp. Vien
na,1976-
PMBZ: Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, éd. F. Winkelmann et
al. Berlin, 1998-

RN 2005, p. 93-102