User talk:Tintero21

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Augustus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ides. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nerva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Cocceius Nerva.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Roman/Byzantine edits

Hey Tintero21,

Just wanted to leave a quick note about your edits to Roman/Byzantine editors. While the enthusiasm is very much appreciated, I wanted to make notes of three things: One, we generally try not to cite primary sources, especially when they are so dated as with the emperors. Two, generally the lede should not be cited if the text is contained and cited in the body of the article. Three: please make sure you are inserting refs with the same format as the other refs. All of "my" emperor articles, and indeed most GA/A/FA content, use some farm of harv referencing, I personally use sfn templates. Please ensure if you are adding to an article that uses sfns, you use sfn templates to cite your sources, and add the book/article in the bibliography. Thanks again for your work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of emperors of the Tang dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emperor Shao.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Gordian I

Just exactly how was Gordian I born in c. 258 and died April 238 AD? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, just a typo. Tintero21 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why removed this referenced information? c. 159 AD --Gordian I, A Dictionary of the Roman Empire, ed. Matthew Bunson, (Oxford University Press, 1995), 183. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The information that Gordian was 80 years old comes from Herodian, that is cited. Tintero21 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoninus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Saint Antoninus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lists of emperors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Emperor Nero article

Hi, in the body text I would suggest to redirect the place of birth of Nero, Antium, to the new article, Antium - and not Anzio - and in addiction i would suggest to remove the term (modern Anzio): as modern Anzio, but also nearby Nettuno, are in close correlation with Antium.

Regards 5.170.104.41 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of List of Roman emperors

Congratulations, Tintero21! The list you nominated, List of Roman emperors, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Tintero21. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Roman emperors – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For your frankly inspiring work on List of Roman emperors with Avilich and Ichthyovenator, please accept this barnstar. The work that the three of you invested in making that beautiful article is highly motivating. Fritzmann (message me) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I had no idea I added those links, it must have been some accident. Sorry. Tintero21 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Questions about 8th century Byzantine emperors

Hello Tintero21, hoping you are well. It's LVDP01 here (you've, rightfully, reverted some of my edits on Byzantine emperor pages before, like removing Marinus from the page of Heraclius as co-emperor as he technically wasn't ever augustus).

I've discovered several claims about emperors Theodosius III and Leo III the Isaurian on other-language Wikipedias that I cannot find evidence or sources for. I wanted to fact-check these claims, so that they could potentially be added to the English Wikipedia as well. You appear to be quite knowledgeable on this era of Byzantine history, and as such, I wanted to ask if you know more about these claims. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask; I just figured that since you've corrected me on early Byzantium several times before, maybe you can help me out with these.

The German Wikipedia alleges that Theodosius III took the additional name Constantine (Constantinus) upon his accession, that he may have had the epithet "The Armenian", and that his son was called Tiberius (rather than Theodosius) and possibly was also co-emperor. For the first claim, the pages sources the Zuqnin Chronicle by Pseudo-Dyionsios. The third claim is based upon the unsuccessful usurpation of Beser in Asia Minor during the 730s, who claimed to be the son of "Emperor Constantine". This can, according to the page, only be Theodosius, who, according to the Zugqnin Chronicle, also took the name Constantine. The same page identifies Theodosius, son of Theodosius III, as actually being a son of Tiberius III. I'm personally not really sure about who is who at the moment. No source is given for the epithet "The Armenian".

As for Leo III, both the German and Latin Wikipedias imply in their Lists of Byzantine emperors that he had the name / honorific Flavius (Phlabios). But this is not mentioned on Leo's actual page on either wiki and I can't find any source that backs this up. I also find it unlikely since it is under Leo's watch that Latin completely ceased being used in Byzantium, including on coin inscriptions.

Hoping you can help me out with this and that you have a great day. LVDP01 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@LVDP01: Hello there, I'm happy to help. These are the Dark Ages, so it's natural that there's confusion in sources.

1) Yes, the Zuqnin Chronicle by Pseudo-Dyionsios calls him "Theodosius (III) Constantine" (The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488-775, p. 149). It's weird that this is not mentioned by any other source; it was certainly not used in coinage. It could be a mistake, but we can't say for sure.
2) The Tiberius issue is the result of conflicting narratives. The Syrian sources say that he was the son of Constantine, the Greek sources say that he the son of Justinian II and grandson of Constantine (IV). The Greek version seems to be the one favored (as in the PBW), but I couldn't find that much info.
3) Theophanes barely mentions Theodosius' son. I think the German article say that he was "possibly co-emperor" because of the following passage in Grierson's Tombs and Obits (p.53) : "Theophanes notes simply that Theodosius and his son abdicated and entered the Church". The reader probably interpreted that Theodosius' son also "abdicated". Theophanes is the one that identifies bishop "Theodosius of Ephesus" as the son of Tiberius III, as noted by Grierson, but according to the Necrologium he was the son of Theodosius III. It's worth noting that neither Teophanes nor the Necrologium call Theodosius' son by name.
4) I couldn't find any source that uses the epithet "The Armenian". It seems to be just a random nickname adde by some user.
5) The Flavius thing is easy. The short story is that it became a courtesy title given to almost everyone after the 3rd century. Think of it as the "Sir" used in, let's say, Paul McCartney's article. It must be noted that the name/title was only ever used in consular papyri, and almost always as just "Fl". A few consular diptychs, notable the one of Justinian I, also included the title. Many scholars added the "Flavius" name a lot of people that never actually used it, but it's use after the 6th century is hard to follow. I'm pretty sure that the last emperor to used it was Constantine III Heraclius (in a papyri, as always), precisely one of the last emperors to rule over Egypt.

Tintero21 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

For reasons unknown to me, I only saw your reply now (did not receive a notification). Thanks a ton for the insight, and sorry for being late! LVDP01 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh well, things like that happen. This is not really relevant, but after some more digging I found out that the "Flavius" remained as part of the imperial title as late as the reign of Leo VI the Wise. At the start of his famous Basilika [1] he's adressed as "αυτοκράτωρ καίσαρ φλάβιος λέων... αύγουστος πιστός βασιλεύς", which translates to Latin as "Imperator Caesar Flavius Leo... Augustus fidelis Basileus". Tintero21 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks a lot for informing me! LVDP01 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

List of condemned Roman emperors

Do you think List of condemned Roman emperors is worth bringing to AFD? Seems to be OR mostly and not a list-topic that is covered by other sources. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, and I agree with you. There aren't that many "condemned" emperors to begin with, and a lot of those names have no place there (their articles do not mention any condemnation). Tintero21 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Brought it to AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of condemned Roman emperors. Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The time in power of Augustus

Listen i get your argument do you think we could add a note at the end of the table of the julio claudian dynasty stating this fact Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Uhmm there is already a footnote below Augustus' reign dates. I think it's pretty self-explanatory; "Augustus thus ruled the Roman state for exactly 56 years, but only 40 as emperor". Tintero21 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah i know but its kinda of obscure i was thinking of putting a note under the julio claudian table Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

And for the second question i was talking about the infox on the pages i was talking about titles and posts like consul , tribune for examble Emperor Claudius

was Roman consul for 4 times yet it is not mentioned in the infobox i think it should since its is also mentioned at the bottom of the page Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I could work an introduction parragraph before the julio-claudian table.

About the other thing, I think the other emperors' offices (like consul) are excluded because the imperial office itself was above them. However, I do think adding other offices could work on the case of Augustus. Tintero21 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks thanks for responding i don't know about the other emperors but in at least Augustus as well as non emperors such as Julius ceaser lepidus and Marc Anthony I could try to revert those edits my self but i am not a good editor and i am afraid i might make a mess of things Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Also there is another issue Augustus mark antony lepidus had their titles removed from their infobox do you think i should restore them i know the titles and should that be done for other emperors like when the assumed the post of consul tribune or caesar

Sorry I didn't get the question, what titles are you talking about? Tintero21 (talk)

Heraclius I

Hi there, hoping your day is going well. I was curious why you removed the passage from Heraclius stating that he is sometimes called "Heraclius I". As far as I know, some authors enumerate his children – most commonly Heraclonas as "Heraclius II", but more rarely as "Heraclius III" and Constantine III Novus as "Heraclius II". Heraclius, son of Constans II is sometimes also listed as Heraclius III. Hence why I was wondering why you removed that passage from his page. LVDP01 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well honestly I just thought it sounded a bit redundant to have "Heraclius" showed twice in the same sentence. Tintero21 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. Would it be better to list this enumeration in an efn then? This is how many other Roman emperor pages do it. LVDP01 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary considering the "Heraclius I" redirects here comment above the lead. Tintero21 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Assistance at List of French monarchs

Hi, I may need your assistance at List of French monarchs in order to restore your beneficial changes to the article. An edit subsequent to yours introduced many improper links all over the article, and it was too onerous to remove them one by one, so I had to roll back to a point earlier than your edits. I apologize for this, but if you can take another look at the article and make sure your changes are still there, and if not, readd them, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your recent fixes at the article much appreciated, and once again, sorry for the bother. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect use of self-published source

In the article "Year zero" you added a source published by Lulu. Web pages can be found that indicate Lulu caters to authors who wish to self-publish. (I cannot link to one such page because it is blacklisted by Wikipedia or Wikimedia.) It appears Lulu fits the description of a vanity press. Although the reliable sources guideline does allow certain uses of self-published sources, using them to advance a position that disagrees with reliable sources published by recognized publishers and well-established experts is not an appropriate use of a self-published source. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more careful next time. All I wanted to do was to point out that authors before Dionysius dated Jesus' birth to 2 BC (I don't think that disagrees with anything really).Tintero21 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a book by Blackburn and Holford-Strevens to the article as a source. That book does mention that there were authors earlier than Dionysius who dated Jesus's birth to what we would call 2 BC. They even mention the possibility that the date intended by Dionysius does fall in the period 1 January to 31 December, 2 BC. It all has to do with whether he intended the conception or the birth, and whether he was beginning the year on 1 January, or in September as was done by the astronomers in Alexandria, who's Easter calculation he adopted. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Constantine_VII

Hello Tintero21, noticing this contribution, I was wondering why you added Constantine VII crowned by Christ, detail of a contemporary ivory plaque.

The plaque dates back from 945. Contemporary art is the art of today, produced in the second half of the 20th century or in the 21st century.

Ghirlandajo who uploaded the original file back in July 2005 stated: A piece of carved ivory from the Pushkin Museum representing Christ blessing Emperor Constantine VII. Dated back to 945, the piece passed from the treasury at Etchmiadzin to the collection of Count Sergey Uvarov in the mid-19th century. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: Oh, what I meant is that the art was contemporary with Constantine VII, like, made in his own time. Honestly I don't remember why I even felt the need to add that. Tintero21 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No worry Tintero21, I'll replace it and indicate the year. Have a nice day. :-) Lotje (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Flavia gens

After further consideration and time to cool off, I decided to go back and incorporate as many of your sources and points as I could, working them into the text to the best of my ability. You seem to have been correct about the timing of the last known use by an eastern emperor, but due to an edit conflict I had to overwrite your text—it still says what you wanted it to, but worded as I was posting it when you edited it. Sorry to be such a grouch. You may or may not want to improve the bibliographic entry on the 1796 source; I wasn't too sure of the publication data, since it's a recent reprint of an old source. P Aculeius (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Coin Image Copyright

Hey Tintero21,

Just wanted to drop a note about the coin image policy: they require permission for both the coins (easy PD-art-70-3d tags for Byzantine/Roman ones), and for the image themselves. For ANS images, this is not an issue as they release their images of all post-1925 objects as PD-0s; the PD-art-70-3d and PD-0 establish permission for both coin and image. However, Dumbarton Oaks reserves rights to its images, so without special permission from them (which they are unlikely to give to Wikipedia, IMO), Wikipedia cannot host them on Commons or use them in articles (unless as non-free images, but it would be basically impossible to justify that). Forgive me if permission was requested and given, but it doesn't seem so as there are no WP:OTRS tags for the exchange. I noticed you have published a number of images from Dumbarton, so I wanted to mention it to you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Valentinus

Hi there, hoping your day is well. I've just rewritten much of the page of Valentinus (caesar under/usurper against Constans II, 641-645). I remember reading somewhere that he may have possibly been descended from the Theodosian dynasty, but I could not find the source for this anywhere, nor the article that linked Valentinus to the Theodosians; thus I declined to add it to the page. I was wondering if perhaps you could shed some light on this. Thanks! LVDP01 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Marcus Ulpius Traianus (father of Trajan)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Marcus Ulpius Traianus (father of Trajan), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constantine Manasses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synopsis Chronike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Chinese monarch list

Hey! I hope all is well with you. I'm getting very distracted with other WP projects and am traveling soon—I think I'm going to try and get the Chinese monarch list ready for FLC in August. Is that okay with you? Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I’ve also got distracted with other projects, I just rewrote the whole List of Roman and Byzantine empresses for example. I’ll definetly have more time in August. Tintero21 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Roman empress list

First off all, I want to say that you did a great job with the list, and I'm really happy it's been improved so much. :D One thing I wanted to ask is, based on your research, do you think that the few male consorts of emperors should be added to the list? Looking at their articles, Nero did marry Sporus, and the latter had the title of "empress", among others. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I would have to research more on that. In the case of Sporus I could add at least a footnote talking about him. Tintero21 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing the coins of the emperors?

With no summaries and just the change of coins, is there any reason why? Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my edit in Majorian? Honestly the previous coin just looked a bit weird to me (mainly the proportion of the head). I also added a footnote about the name, by the way. Tintero21 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Gracias

Gracias para su ayuda mi amigo.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon

Hello there

I deleted your footnote to the first reign in the info box. Please note that there is a consensus to reduce the size of the article. This does not mean that we should cram detailed information into the info box. The info box is meant to provide a concise summary of the most important information in the article. See MOS:INFOBOX. Please go to the talk page if you want to add detailed information to this article. Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a griffin's claw full of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec21}} to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Labels

While I get that Magnentius, Procopius, and Eugenius are listed on the “List of Roman emperors” list due to them fitting at least one of the inclusion criteria, I thought they were usually considered usurpers rather than emperors, so I found it odd to use the latter. Snowsoftime (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they are usually considered "usurpers". The only difference between Magnentius and Majorian is that the former was defeated by the Eastern "legitimate" emperor, yet the latter is never called an usurper despite never receiving recognition in the East. Libius Severus nor Glycerius are treated as usurpers either, even though they were deposed by orders of the Eastern court. Scholarship has always been inconsistent on the matter. In the East, the only thing separating emperors from usurpers was the control of Constantinople, hence why I considered Procopius as an emperor. Tintero21 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, the exact distinction between usurpers and emperors is rather difficult to tell, especially after the permanent East/West split. For instance, Maxentius was not recognized as legitimate by all the other emperors, but I tend to see him called an emperor rather than a usurper. I think the reasoning is that he lasted 6 years on the throne, and during that time he did a lot of stuff other than fighting.

Procopius’s seizure of Constantinople does make him one of the more notable usurpers, as it did seem at one point that he might have succeeded. He was specifically challenging Valens though, and he lost. Snowsoftime (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I should say more.

While Gordian I and II failed to oust Maximinus Thrax, I don’t see anyone questioning their legitimacy, as they were recognized by most of the empire.

Is his brief control of Constantinople enough to consider Procopius more than a usurper? He did not gain control of the entire East. Snowsoftime (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I always understood that the Gordians were considered legitimate because they were recognized by the Roman Senate (as opposed to, let's say, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus). Procopius' case is somewhat special because he was defeated even with control of the capital; usually an usurper-turned-emperor defeat his rival and then takes control of the capital. I guess I'm just trying to find some consistency with the criteria used to define usurpers, although it's all just semantics at the end, not really a big deal. Tintero21 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)