Heraclius Constantine (Latin:Heraclius novus Constantinus;Greek:Ἡράκλειος νέος Κωνσταντῖνος,romanized: Hērákleios néos Kōnstantīnos; 3 May 612 – 25 May 641), often enumerated asConstantine III, was one of the shortest reigning soleByzantine emperors, ruling for three months in 641. He was the eldest son of EmperorHeraclius and his first wifeFabia Eudokia.
Constantine was crowned co-emperor by his father on 22 January 613 and shortly after was betrothed to his cousin,Gregoria, a daughter of his father's first cousin,Nicetas.[6] As the couple were second cousins, the marriage was technicallyincestuous, but this consideration must have been outweighed by the advantages of the match to the family as a whole. Furthermore, its illegality paled into insignificance beside Heraclius' marriage to his nieceMartina the same year. In comparison, Constantine's marriage was far less scandalous than that of his father.[7] Constantine assumed an honoraryconsulship on 1 January 632, and at the same ceremony his brotherHeraclonas was raised to the rank ofCaesar.[8][b]
Constantine became senior emperor when his father died on 11 February 641. He reigned together with his younger half-brotherHeraclonas, the son of Martina. His supporters feared action against him on the part of Martina and Heraclonas, and the treasurer Philagrius advised him to write to the army, informing them that he was dying and asking for their assistance in protecting the rights of his children. He also sent a vast sum of money, more than two millionsolidi (gold coins), toValentinus, an adjutant of Philagrius, to distribute to the soldiers to persuade them to secure the succession for his sons after his death. He died oftuberculosis after only three months, on 25 May, leaving Heraclonas sole emperor.[9] A rumor that Martina had him poisoned led first to the imposition ofConstans II as co-emperor and then to the deposition, mutilation, and banishment of Martina and her sons.[6]
The Romans themselves did not useregnal numbers, which are instead applied to the emperors by modern historians. There is particular confusion surrounding the name "Constantine III" as it has been also applied to the earlier Western emperorConstantine (r. 407–411), who started as a usurper but was later recognized byHonorius (r. 395–423).[11]Charles le Beau (1701–1778), who established the convention of numbering eleven Constantines, uses the numeral only for the Eastern emperor.[12][13]Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) also explicitly refers to the Western emperor as a usurper and gives the numeral to the Eastern one.[14][15]Justin Sabatier (1792–1869) andLouis Félicien de Saulcy (1807–1880) notably enumerate Heraclius Constantine as "Heraclius II", a numeral often used for his brotherHeraclonas, but refer to the next Constantine asConstantine IV, thus indirectly counting the Western emperor.[16][17] This numbering has been followed by a few authors.[18][19][1]Warwick Wroth (1858–1911) uses no numeral for Heraclius Constantine and uses "Constantine III" as an alternative name forConstans II.[20] TheProsopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE) (1980) uses the numeral solely for the Eastern emperor,[4][21] while theOxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991) uses it solely for the Western one.[22]Philip Grierson (1910–2006) applies the numeral to both emperors, but treats "Constantine III" more like an alternate name for Heraclius Constantine, who is not given a numeral in the index.[23][24] TheRoman Imperial Coinage (RIC), which ends with thefall of the West, uses the numeral for the Western emperor, which has now become standard.[25] Strangely enough, both Constantines had a son called Constans. Neither theRIC,PLRE nor Grierson give the Western one a numeral,[25][26][24] yet he's still often called "Constans II".
^Or, according to theNecrologium, 20 April, which would make a total reign of 99 days (counting from 11 January) as opposed to the "103 days" (from 11 February) indicated byNikephoros.[2] The latter date, 11 February, is traditionally the most accepted.[3]
^Theophanes dates the event to 613, but he also states that it occurred in the 5thindiction, that is, 617. Official documents indicate that it occurred in the next indictional cycle, that is, 632.[8]
^Lebeau, Charles (1762)."Books XXVIII Part III – XXIX, Part XII".Histoire du bas-empire: en commençant a Constantin le Grand: Tome Sixieme (in French). Chez Desaint & Saillant. pp. 248–393.
^Beau, Charles Le (1768)."Book LIX".Histoire du bas-empire: en commençant a Constantin le Grand: Tome Douzième (in French). Chez Desaint & Saillant. pp. 471–483.
El-Cheikh, Nadia Maria (1999). "Muḥammad and Heraclius: A Study in Legitimacy".Studia Islamica.62 (89). Maisonneuve & Larose:5–21.doi:10.2307/1596083.ISSN0585-5292.JSTOR1596083.
Rösch, Gerhard (1978).Onoma Basileias: Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit. Byzantina et Neograeca Vindobonensia (in German). Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.ISBN978-3-7001-0260-1.
