Editing Constantine XI Palaiologos (section)

=== Historiography ===
[[File:Constantine Palaiologos.jpg|thumb|19th-century depiction of Constantine XI with [[Classical antiquity|classical]] Greco-Roman armor]]
Constantine's death marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, an institution tracing its origin to Constantine the Great's foundation of Constantinople as the Roman Empire's new capital in 330. Even as their realm gradually became more restricted to only Greek-speaking lands, the people of the Byzantine Empire continually maintained that they were ''[[Romaioi]]'' (Romans), not ''Hellenes'' (Greeks); as such, Constantine's death also marked the end of the line of Roman Emperors started by [[Augustus]] 1,480 years earlier.{{Sfn|Nicol|1992|p=ix}} Constantine's death and the fall of Constantinople also marked the true birth of the Ottoman Empire, which dominated much of the [[eastern Mediterranean]] until its fall in 1922. The conquest of Constantinople had been a dream of Islamic armies since the 8th century and through its possession, Mehmed II and his successors claimed to be the heirs of the Roman emperors.{{Sfn|Nicolle|Haldon|p=174|Turnbull|2007}}

There is no evidence that Constantine ever rejected the hated union of the Churches achieved at Florence in 1439 after spending a lot of energy to realize it. Many of his subjects had chastised him as a traitor and heretic while he lived and he, like many of his predecessors before him, died in communion with the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, Constantine's actions during the fall of Constantinople and his death fighting the Turks redeemed the popular view of him. The Greeks forgot or ignored that Constantine had died a "heretic", and many considered him a [[martyr]]. In the eyes of the Orthodox Church, Constantine's death sanctified him and he died a hero.{{Sfn|Nicol|1992|p=109}} In Athens, the modern capital of Greece, there are two statues of Constantine: a colossal monument depicting the emperor on horseback on the waterfront of [[Palaio Faliro]], and a smaller statue in the city's [[Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens|cathedral square]], which portrays the emperor on foot with a drawn sword. There are no statues of emperors such as [[Basil II]] or [[Alexios I Komnenos]], who were significantly more successful and died of natural causes after long and glorious reigns.{{Sfn|Harris|2019|p=}}

Scholarly works on Constantine and the fall of Constantinople tend to portray Constantine, his advisors, and companions as victims of the events that surrounded the city's fall. There are three main works that deal with Constantine and his life: the earliest is [[Čedomilj Mijatović]]'s ''Constantine Palaeologus (1448–1453) or The Conquest of Constantinople by the Turks'' (1892), written at a time when tensions were rising between the relatively new [[Kingdom of Greece]] and the Ottoman Empire. War appeared imminent and Mijatović's work was intended to serve as propaganda for the Greek cause by portraying Constantine as a tragic victim of events he had no possibility of affecting. The text is dedicated to the young Prince [[Constantine I of Greece|Constantine]], of the same name as the old emperor and the heir to the Greek throne, and its preface states that "Constantinople may soon again change masters", alluding to the possibility that Greece [[Megali Idea|might conquer]] the ancient city.{{Sfn|Hellebuyck|2006|p=|pp=1–2}}{{better source needed|date=March 2023}}

The second major work on Constantine, [[Steven Runciman]]'s ''The Fall of Constantinople 1453'' (1965), also characterizes Constantine through Constantinople's fall, portraying Constantine as tragic figure who did everything to save his empire from the Ottomans. However, Runciman partly blames Constantine for antagonizing Mehmed II through his threats concerning Orhan. The third major work, [[Donald Nicol]]'s ''The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans'' (1992), examines Constantine's entire life and analyzes the trials and hardships he faced not only as emperor, but as Despot of the Morea as well. Nicol's work places considerably less emphasis on the importance of individuals than the preceding works do, though Constantine is again portrayed as a mostly tragic figure.{{Sfn|Hellebuyck|2006|p=|pp=2–3}}{{better source needed|date=March 2023}}

A less positive assessment of Constantine was given by [[Marios Philippides]] in ''Constantine XI Dragaš Palaeologus (1404–1453): The Last Emperor of Byzantium'' (2019). Philippides sees no evidence that Constantine was a great statesman or a great soldier. Although the emperor had visions for his reign, Philippides deems him as diplomatically ineffective and unable to inspire the support of his people to achieve his goals. Philippides is highly critical of Nicol's ''The Immortal Emperor'', which he sees as unbalanced. In his book, Philippides points out that Constantine's reconquest of the Morea from the Latins had mostly been achieved through marriages and not military victories. Though much of Philippides' work relies on primary sources, some of his negative assessment seems speculative; he suggests that Constantine's campaigns in the Morea made the peninsula "easier prey for the Turks", something that cannot be substantiated through the actual events that unfolded.{{Sfn|Harris|2019|p=}}