As the narrative of church history is summarily rehearsed, the Council of Nicea was fixated in focused opposition to the Christological heresy of Arianism. The Life of Constantine, however, mentions a secondary yet forgotten focus upon Easter (“Quartodeciman”) disputes. The Life boldly claims that the differences were discussed and “resolved by the united judgment of all present,” as the assembled bishops concluded that they should not follow “the practice of the Jews” nor have anything “in common with the detestable Jewish Crowd” (Vita Const. 3.18). The Council’s own précis sent by letter “to the Egyptian church” listed the three conciliar targets of Arianism, Melitianism, and the Easter (“Quartodeciman”) disputes (“things which specifically affect Egypt, and the most holy church of the Alexandrians”). Nevertheless, this conciliar précis over-simplified the history by portraying the disagreement as a polarized duel between Rome and the East. The Council’s précis also (prematurely) celebrated resolution to the Easter controversies, claiming that they had “been happily settled.” My presentation will trace the complexities of the Quartodeciman disputes, including the roles of immigration, local tensions, inter-ecclesial dialogue, shifting attitudes toward Jews, and conflicting apostolic claims. Moreover, the paper will integrate recent scholarship that has placed the Canons of Antioch (including their anti-Quartodeciman determinations) in c. 328 rather than 341 (as previously assumed), thus illustrating how quickly the conversation moved from the Nicene claims of a “happy settlement” to hegemonic threats of ecclesial ex-communication and clerical removal. Such a tenor ironically reflects the durable strength of rival Easter traditions—customs which had formerly claimed the support of respected church leaders, including the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna, Melito of Sardis, and Polycrates of Ephesus.