| |
|
Carney & Wehofer Family
Genealogy Pages
|
 |
|
 347 - 395 (48 years)
-
| Name |
Flavius Theodosius I ('The Great') (Emperor Of The Roman Empire - 379-395) |
| Born |
11 Jan 346-347 |
Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain  |
| Gender |
Male |
| _UID |
F6B181A29F7440F4BAB066FD85A94F167143 |
| Died |
17 Jan 394-395 |
Mediolanum (Milan), Italy |
| Buried |
Constantine Ii's Mausoleum, Constantinople, Turkey |
| Person ID |
I26188 |
Carney Wehofer 2024 Genealogy |
| Last Modified |
22 May 2011 |
| Father |
Flavius Theodosius ('The Elder'), b. 325, Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain , d. 375-376, Carthage, Tunisia, Africa (Age 51 years) |
| Mother |
Thermantia, d. Yes, date unknown |
| Family ID |
F4425 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
| Family 1 |
Ælia Flavia Flaccilla Of Spain, b. 355, Spain , d. 386 (Age 31 years) |
| Married |
376 |
| Children |
| | 1. Arcadius I (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 395-408), b. 377-378, Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain , d. May 408, Rome, Italy (Age 30 years) |
| | 2. Flavius Honorius (Emperor Of The Western Roman Empire - 395-423), b. 9 Sep 384, d. 423 (Age 38 years) |
| | 3. Pulcheria, b. 385, d. Yes, date unknown |
|
| Last Modified |
29 Aug 2016 |
| Family ID |
F11812 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
-
| Notes |
- Theodosius I, byname Theodosius the Great, in full Flavius Theodosius (b.11 Jan 347, Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia - d. 17 Jan 395 Mediolanum (Milan)),Roman emperor of the East (379-392) and then sole emperor of both Eastand West (392-395), who, in vigorous suppression of paganism andArianism, established the creed of the Council of Nicaea (325) as theuniversal norm for Christian orthodoxy and directed the convening of thesecond general council at Constantinople (381) to clarify the formula.
Theodosius was born in the province of Gallaecia in northwestern Spain.His father was to become the general Flavius Theodosius; his mother'sname is unknown. His grandparents, like his parents, were probablyalready Christians. Theodosius, who grew up in Spain, did not receive anextensive education but was intellectually open-minded and acquired aspecial interest in the study of history.
While on his father's staff, he participated in his campaigns against thePicts and Scots in Britain in 368-373, against the Alemanni in Gaul in370, and against the Sarmatians in the Balkans in 372-373. As a militarycommander in Moesia, a Roman provence on the lower Danube, he defeatedthe Sarmatians in 374. When his father was sentenced to death andexecuted as a result of political intrigues by enemies at court,Theodosius withdrew to his Spanish estates. At the end of 376, hemarried Aelia Facilla, also a Spaniard. His first son, the futureemperor Arcadius, was born in 377, and his daughter Pulcheria in 378.
Immediately after the catastrophic defeat of the emperor Valens, whoperished at the hands of the Visigoths and other barbarians on 9 Aug 378,near Adrianople, the emperor Gratian unexpectedly summoned Theodosius tohis court. When Theodosius had once again proved his military ability bya victory over the Sarmatians, Gratian proclaimed him co-emperor on 19Jan 379. His dominion was to be the eastern part of the empire,including the provinces of Dacia (present-day Romania) and Macedonia,which had been especially infiltrated by barbarians in the preceding fewyears.
In 383, Maximus, a Spaniard who had been proclaimed emperor by the troopsin Britain asserted himself as ruler in the Western provinces(praefectura Galliarum). Suspicions that Theodosius was in collusionwith the usurper and thus implicated int he death of Emperor Gratian inAugust 282 are unfounded. Theodosius, who had to acknowledge thesovereignty of Gratian's stepbrother Valentinian II, born in 371 and thenominal ruler in Italy since the end of 375, could not interfere withMaximus, for he lacked both sufficient military strength and secureborders. Yet, when Maximus invaded Italy in 387 and Valentinian wasforced to flee to Thessalonica, Theodosius soon decided uponcoutermeasures. His decision was perhaps hastened throught the influenceof Valentinian's mother, whose daughter Galla he had married at the endof 387, having been a widower since 386.
Theodosius' position by that time had become stronger. Long-standingnegotiations with the Persians over the division of power in Armenia hadresulted in a treaty that was to become the basis for a long period ofpeace on the eastern border. Having ordered one army division from Egyptto Africa and sent Valentinian with a fleet to Italy, Theodosius set outin the spring of 388 with the main body of troops to move againstMaximus' army, which had invaded Pannonia in the Balkans. By July theenemy was defeated. When Maximus surrendered at the end of August he wasbranded as a usurper, but his followers were generally treated withleniency.
In the same year, Theodosius again relinquished the West to hisco-emperor Valetinian but secured his own influence by pacing theFrankish general Arbogast, a man he trusted, at Valentinian's side asgeneral adviser. By remaining in Italy until the spring of 391, where heresided mostly in Milan, Theodosius emphasized his claim to supremeauthority throughout the empire. In 389 he visitied Rome, where,accompanied by his four-year-old son Honorius, he mad a triumphant entry.
A new crisis arose for Theodosius three months after Valentinian's deathon 15 May 392. Arbogast treacherously proclaimed as emperor of the Westa former rhetoric teacher, Eugenius, who had close connections with thepagan aristocracy of the Senate. Theodosius, who did not yet dare risk acivil war, delayed reception of a legation requesting recognition ofArbogast's puppet. On 8 Nov 392, he made his edicts of 391 morestringent by completely prohibiting the worship of the pagan gods. Heleft no further doubts as to his position when he elevated his sonHonorius to Augustus in January 393 and thereby demonstrated that hewould no longer tolerate any emperor other than himself and his sons.Because he still refrained from military action, his enemies occupiedItaly in the spring of 393. Led by Nicomachus Flavianus, the forcesstriving to preserve the pagan cults gathered around Eugenius.
The now inevitable struggle for power was thus at the same time astruggle that would decide whether pagan religions would once again betolerated within the empire alongside Christianity. Theodosius did noset out from Constantinople until May 394. As in 388, he made his waytoward Danube and then the Sava with his powerful army. His forceconsisted largely of barbarians and their allies, one of whose leaderswas Stilicho, a Vandal who had been married since 384 to the Emperor'sniece Serena. Theodosius' sons Arcadius and Honorius stayed behind inthe capital. Arcadius, who had been given the right to promulgate lawsindependently, was supposed to direct the government in the East.
Theodosius first met the enemy at the Frigidus River on the easternborder of Italy. Although Theodosius' advance guard, comprised almostentirely of Visigoths, suffered heavy losses during an attemptedbreakthrough on 5 Sep 394, the emperor ventured to attack the followingday and was victorious. Later Christian tradition, emphasizingTheodosius' piety and trust in God, essentially interpreted the victoryas a divine judgement: the god of the Christians had triumphed over theold Roman gods. Following the deaths of Eugenius, Arbogast, andNicomachus Flavianus, Theodosius showed himself lenient and strove toachieve the settlement between opposing forces that was necessary tostrengthen imperial unity.
Probably as a result of the exertion of the campaign, Theodosius fellill. He went to Milan, where he summoned Honorius in order to presenthim formally as Augustus of the West. Because Theodosius had appeared torecover, his death in January 395 was generally unexpected. On hisdeathbed he had entrusted Stilicho, promoted to generalissimo after thevictory at the Frigidus, with the care of his two sons. From Ambrose'sfuneral oration, filled with praise of the Christian ruler, it is evidentthat contemporaries had no doubt as to the continuing unity of theempire, for the question of succession seemed to have been settled in thebest possible way. Yet, all too soon it was to become apparent thatTheodosius had not chosen his advisers with sufficient care and that themen who were guiding the sickly Arcadius were unwilling to cooperate withStilicho, who remained loyal to the dynasty. After his death,Theodosius' body was borne in state to Constantinople and interred in themausoleum erected by Constantius II. [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995]
From David Woods, University College of Cork:
Origin and Early Career - Flavius Theodosius was born at Cauca in Spainin about 346 to Thermantia and Theodosius the Elder (so-called todistinguish him from his son). Theodosius the Elder was a seniormilitary officer serving in the Western empire and rose to become themagister equitum praesentalis under the emperor Valentinian I from late368 until his execution in early 375. As the son of a soldier,Theodosius was legally obliged to enter upon a military career. He seemsto have served under his father during his expedition to Britain in367/8, and was the dux Moesiae Primae by late 374. Unfortunately,great controversy surrounds the rest of his career until Gratian had himhailed as his imperial colleague in succession to the emperor Valens atSirmium on 19 January 379. It is clear that he was forced to retirehome to Spain only to be recalled to active service shortly thereafter,but the circumstances of his forced retirement are shrouded inmystery. His father was executed at roughly the same time, and muchspeculation has centred on the relationship between these events. Ageneral consensus seems to have emerged, however, that the future emperorwas forced into retirement shortly after the execution of his father atCarthage in Africa during the winter of 375/6. The same courtfaction which had engineered the death of his father managed to persuadeValentinian to dismiss him also, or so the consensus goes. Thisinterpretation of events is incorrect, however, not least because itplaces far too much trust in a number of unreliable sources.
The answer to the mystery surrounding Theodosius' forced retirement liesin Ammianus' description of a severe defeat which Sarmatian raidersinflicted upon Roman forces in the province of Valeria in late 374 whenthey almost annihilated a legio Moesiaca, i.e. a legion from Moesia, anda legio Pannonica, i.e. a legion from Pannonia. These legions hadbeen sent to intercept a party of Sarmatians who had been pursuing asenior Roman officer named Aequitius deep into Roman territory, and wouldundoubtedly have triumphed had they acted together. But they failed toco-operate, and their quarrelling allowed the Sarmatians to catch themunprepared, defeating the legion from Moesia first, then the legion fromPannonia. Valentinian's reaction to this defeat can best be judged fromhis reaction to an earlier defeat which the Alamanni had managed toinflict on his forces in Gaul during the spring of 365. He soughtout those who had been the first to turn and run before the enemy andblamed them for the subsequent defeat. He ordered the unit in question -the Batavi - to be stripped of their weapons and sold into slavery, andit took the whole army to persuade him to relent. In this instance, thefirst of the two units to break and run had been the legion from Moesia.Hence Valentinian would have held their commanding officer responsiblefor the wider defeat, and, as the dux Moesiae Primae, Theodosius was theofficer ultimately responsible for this unit. Hence Valentinian dismissedTheodosius and sent him home to Cauca in Spain in the same manner, andfor the same reason, that the emperor Constantius II had dismissedValentinian himself in 357, or the magister equitum per Gallias Marcellusin the same year. He had found him guilty of cowardice.
The best explanation for the death of Theodosius the Elder is that he hadtried to intervene on behalf of his son, and Valentinian had had himexecuted as a result, most probably during the early new year of375. His son regained his commission within the army only followingthe death of Valentinian himself on 17 November 375. He seems to haveobtained a position similar to that which he had originally held at hisdismissal, that of dux Valeriae perhaps. He campaigned against theSarmatians again in 376, during which he was promoted as the magistermilitum per Illyricum. He remained as magister militum perIllyricum from 376 until 19 January 379 when the western emperor Gratianappointed him to succeed his eastern colleague Valens who had been killedat the Battle of Adrianople on 9 August 378. The fact that Gratian chosehim as his new colleague does not necessarily mean that he enjoyed aparticularly good reputation as the best general of his day. Gratian hadeffectively been forced to choose him since he seems to have been themost senior officer of Roman birth available to him at the time.
Foreign Policy - The problem confronting Theodosius immediately upon hisaccession was how to check the Goths and their allies who were continuingto ravage the Balkans. One difficulty was that they had spreadbeyond the diocese of Thrace into the dioceses of Macedonia and Dacia inthe prefecture of Illyricum, which had traditionally belonged to thewestern empire. The result was that Gratian surrendered the threedioceses of the prefecture of Illyricum to the temporary control ofTheodosius for the duration of the Gothic crisis, while he himselfreturned to Trier in Gaul. The date of this transfer is disputed,but it seems to have come into formal effect at the beginning of the newtax year on 1 September 379 and may be presumed to have ended on 31August 382. This left Theodosius in control of the entire theatre ofoperations. Theodosius left Sirmium, the site of his accession, forThessalonica in Macedonia which remained his base for the campaignseasons of 379 and 380. Gratian had transferred some of his own officersand men to Theodosius in order to assist him in his efforts to rebuildthe eastern field-armies, which had been shattered at the Battle ofAdrianople. These transfers included his comes domesticorum Richomer, whobecame Theodosius' magister peditum praesentalis, a post which heretained until his death by illness in late 392.
We are poorly informed about the exact sequence of events during theGothic war, but Theodosius' "general" Modares appears to have inflictedan important defeat upon the Goths somewhere in Thrace in 379.Theodosius proved himself willing to recruit one group of barbarians intohis army to use against the other groups who remained hostile, but thiswas a risky strategy. In order to reduce the risk, Theodosius transferredsome of these fresh barbarian recruits to Egypt in return for some of theexperienced Roman troops stationed there, during late 379apparently. Nevertheless, a large number of his new recruitsappeared to have defected to the other side during the course of hiscampaign in 380, so that he suffered at least one serious reverse. Heleft Thessalonica and entered Constantinople for the first time on 24November 380. He was to remain in Constantinople, or its immediatevicinity, until late 387. During the winter of 380/1 he wrote to Gratianfor his help against the Goths in Illyricum, and Gratian replied first bysending his "generals" Bauto and Arbogast against them, then by taking tothe field himself. They appear to have succeeded in driving theGoths and their allies from Illyricum and back into Thrace during 381.Theodosius, however, did enjoy a propaganda coup when the Gothicchieftain Athanaric surrendered to him at Constantinople on 11 January381, although he died only two weeks later. Theodosius finallyreached a settlement with the remainder of the Goths on 3 October382. The exact terms of this settlement have not been preserved,but it is clear that the Goths were granted the right to settle largeamounts of land along the Danube frontier in the diocese of Thrace andenjoyed an unusual degree of autonomy. Many came to serve in theRoman army, but the terms of their service remain unclear. Manyvolunteered to serve on a full-time professional basis, while more wereobliged to serve only for the duration of a specific campaign. Theresults were that the Goths who settled within the empire remained aconstant threat to its internal stability. A substantial number of Gothictroops defected to the side of Magnus Maximus when Theodosius joined hisforces with those of the young Valentinian II at Thessalonica in 387 inpreparation for their joint campaign westwards against Maximus.These hid in the rough country about Thessalonica until Theodosiusmanaged to drive them back into Thrace during his return from the West in391, where they remained a threat as late as 392 when they managed tokill the "general" Promotus. One of their emerging leaders, Alaric,participated in Theodosius' campaign against Eugenius in 394, only toresume his rebellious behaviour against Theodosius' son and easternsuccessor, Arcadius, shortly thereafter. Nor did the external threatcease. The "general" Promotus won a notable victory for Theodosius in 386when he defeated an attempt by Odotheus and his Greuthungian Goths toforce their way across the Danube.
The East remained relatively quiet under Theodosius. The Saracensrejected their previous treaty of 377 with the Romans and resumed theirraids once more along the frontier from Arabia to Syria in 383apparently. We do not know the reason for this revolt, but themagister peditum praesentalis Richomer appears to have crushed it in butone campaign that year. As a result, the Salihids replaced the Tanukhidsas the dominant group among Rome's Saracen foederati. As for thePersians, Theodosius maintained good relations with a rapid succession ofPersian kings during his reign. Armenia remained a potential source ofconflict between the two powers until they reached agreement upon thedivision of this country in 387 when Theodosius sent his magister militumper Orientem Stilicho on an embassy to the Persian court. Inaccordance with this agreement, the pro-Roman king Arsak retainedpossession of the western part of the country, while the pro-Persian kingKhosro retained possession of the eastern part.
Civil Wars - Theodosius fought two bloody civil wars in quick successionagainst the usurpers Magnus Maximus and Eugenius. Magnus Maximus was afellow Spaniard who even claimed to be a relative of Theodosiushimself. Like Theodosius, he was also a pious Catholic. Hence therewas no deep ideological differences between the two. Magnus Maximus hadbeen the commander of a field army in Britain in 383 when he had led histroops back to Gaul in an attempt to seize power. He forced Gratianto flee from an initial encounter near Paris, but was blamed forGratian's assassination near Lyons as he made for northern Italy. Thiswas the only charge which Theodosius could seriously have held againsthim in 383, that he had risen to power through the assassination of alegitimate emperor. War between the two had not been inevitable, and theorator Themistius undoubtedly exaggerates when he claims that Theodosiusset out against him in 384 with the intention of avenging Gratian'sdeath. The young Valentinian II continued to rule the prefecturesof Italy, Illyricum and Africa, which constituted a buffer-ground betweenthe territories of his two more powerful colleagues. An uneasy peaceprevailed until the late summer of 387 when Maximus sent his troops intonorthern Italy and forced Valentinian to retreat to Thessalonica at theeastern extreme of his territory. Yet while Maximus may have struckthe first formal blow in this renewed bout of civil war, one suspectsthat he felt compelled to act as he did much because of the growinginfluence of Theodosius over Valentinian and his ministers. One notesthat Theodosius' magister peditum praesentalis Richomer was the uncle ofValentinian's magister equitum praesentalis Arbogast, who was effectivelythe sole commander of Valentinian's forces at this point. Moreimportantly, perhaps, Valentinian had appointed Gildo as his comesAfricae ca. 386, and Theodosius had attempted to win Gildo over to hiscause by marrying Nebridius, a nephew of the empress Flaccilla, toGildo's daughter Salvina.The fact that Maximus suffered some sortof serious defeat at Sicily during the initial stage of the civil war in388, and that he committed a large number of men to naval operations offthe southern Italian coast under the command of his magister praesentalisAndragathius, suggests that Theodosius was well rewarded for his efforts,that he did at least persuade Gildo to defect to his side and seizeSicily on his behalf. Whatever the case, Theodosius joined withValentinian at Thessalonica during the late summer of 387, at which timehe also married Valentinian's sister Galla. They launched a jointexpedition against Maximus during the summer of 388, defeating his forcesin pitched battles at Siscia, then Poetovio. They then forced theirway across the Alps and captured Maximus himself at Aquileia. They hadhim executed three miles outside Aquileia on 28 August 388, and sentArbogast to do the same to his son Victor in Trier. However, they sparedhis wife and two daughters.
Theodosius spent about three years in Italy until he began his returntrip to Constantinople in the summer of 391. Valentinian now ruled thewhole of the western empire, but he was increasingly dominated by hismagister peditum praesentalis Arbogast, whose own arrogance increased thefurther Theodosius moved from the scene. Matters came to a head in 392when Valentinian tried to cashier Arbogast and Arbogast simply refused toaccept his command. Valentinian secretly wrote to Theodosius forhis assistance, but was found dead on 15 May 392. An uneasy peacefollowed as Arbogast awaited the news of Theodosius' reaction to thedeath of his brother-in-law Valentinian; Theodosius tried to determinewhether Valentinian really had committed suicide as alleged.Unfortunately for all concerned, Theodosius was still married to Galla,who refused to accept that her brother had committed suicide. Worsestill, Arbogast's strongest advocate at Theodosius' court, his uncleRichomer, was mortally ill. As a hostile judgement seemed increasinglylikely, Arbogast struck first. He hailed Valentinian's magister scriniias emperor on 22 August 392 and quickly secured Italy for his cause. Incontrast to his acceptance of Maximus for several years, Theodosiusrefused to recognise Eugenius as emperor right from the start. Hepublicly indicated this by his refusal to accept Eugenius' nominees forthe consulship of 393 and by his coronation of his second son Honorius asAugustus on 23 January 393. The war did not begin until the summer of 394when Theodosius finally began his march from Constantinople. The war wasdecided by one decisive battle on the banks of the river Frigidus in thefoothills of the Alps on 6 September 394. While Christian sourcesdelight to recount how God assisted Theodosius by sending a wind to blowhis enemies' weapons back into their faces, the crucial factor wassurely the decision by a key section of Maximus' army under the comesArbitio to defect from his side to that of Theodosius. SoTheodosius triumphed and had Eugenius executed, while Arbogast committedsuicide.
Religious Policy - Theodosius was Catholic and received baptism at thehands of bishop Acholius of Thessalonica during the autumn of 380 whenserious illness threatened his life. Two days after his firstarrival in Constantinople on 24 November 380, Theodosius expelled the"Arian" bishop Demophilus of Constantinople from the churches of thatcity and surrendered them to Gregory of Naziaznus who happened to be theleader of the small Catholic or "Nicene" community there at the time.This was greatly resented and may even have resulted in an attempt toassassinate the emperor. He also called a synod of 150 Catholicbishops who assembled at Constantinople in May 381. An early meeting ofthis synod, when all the bishops had not yet arrived, elected Gregory ofNazianzus as the new Bishop of Constantinople, but he was quickly forcedto resign. The synod then elected the senator Nectarius, who obviouslyenjoyed the strong backing of the emperor himself, in his stead.Theodosius' early reign witnessed the gradual expulsion of all hereticalbishops from the towns and cities of the East and the transfer of allchurch buildings and property to their Catholic rivals. The depth ofresentment which such policies caused can best be judged by the fact thatin 388 "Arian" mobs at Constantinople rioted and caused widespread damagein reponse to the false rumour that Magnus Maximus had inflicted a severedefeat upon Theodosius.
Theodosius continued to tolerate the traditional pagan practices andrituals which had enjoyed toleration from successive Christian emperorsthroughout the fourth century, i.e., almost anything which did notinclude blood-sacrifice or did not smack of treason against the emperor,until 391 at least. He then issued a series of laws which seemedeffectively to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagansites of worship or even the adornment in any manner of the images of thegods. This apparent change of policy on his part has often beencredited to the increased influence of bishop Ambrose of Milan. Forin 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius because he had ordered theexecution of several thousand of the inhabitants of Thessalonica inresponse to the murder there of his "general" Butherichus. Theodosiusaccepted his excommunication and even performed several months of publicpenance, so it is all too easy too imagine how he might have taken thetime to review his other "failings" also, including his continuedtoleration of paganism. However, the importance of these laws hasbeen greatly exaggerated. They were limited in scope, specificmeasures in response to various petitions and accusations and tell usless about Theodosius than the private agenda of many of the increasinglymilitant Christians who could be found throughout his administration.Although he had voiced his support earlier for the preservation oftemples or pagan statues as useful public buildings or as works of art,in 391 he officially sanctioned the destruction of the most famous of thetemples in the East, the Serapeum at Alexandria. Bands of monks andChristian officials had long been accustomed to take the law into theirown hands and destroy various centres of pagan worship, but thedestruction of the Serapeum seemed to confirm that such actions had oftenenjoyed the emperor's tacit approval at least, and served to encouragesuch action in the future also. Again, however, Theodosius had beeneffectively manipulated into sanctioning the destruction of the Serapeumby local officials who had essentially engineered the crisis there forthis very purpose.
Family and Succession - Theodosius married twice. His first wife was theSpanish Aelia Flavia Flaccilla. She bore him Arcadius ca. 377,Honorius on 9 September 384, and Pulcheria ca. 385. Theodosius honouredher with the title of Augusta shortly after his accession, but she diedin 386. In late 387 he married Galla, daughter of Valentinian I andfull-sister of Valentinian II. She bore him Gratian ca. 388, GallaPlacidia ca. 388/390, and died in childbirth in 394, together with hernew-born son John. Of his two sons who survived infancy, heappointed Arcadius as Augustus on 19 January 383 and Honorius as Augustuson 23 January 393. His promotion of Arcadius as a full Augustus at anunusually young age points to his determination right from the start thatone of his own sons should succeed him. He sought to strengthen Arcadius'position in particular by means of a series of strategic marriages whosepurpose was to tie his leading "generals" irrevocably to his dynasty.Hence he married his niece and adoptive daughter Serena to his magistermilitum per Orientem Stilicho in 387, her elder sister Thermantia to a"general" whose name has not been preserved, and ca. 387 hisnephew-in-law Nebridius to Salvina, daughter of the comes AfricaeGildo. By the time of his death by illness on 17 January 395,Theodosius had promoted Stilicho from his position as one of the twocomites domesticorum under his own eastern administration to that ofmagister peditum praesentalis in a western administration, in an entirelytraditional manner, under his younger son Honorius. Although Stilichomanaged to increase the power of the magister peditum praesentalis to thedisadvantage of his colleague the magister equitum praesentalis andclaimed that Theodosius had appointed him as guardian for both his sons,this tells us more about his cunning and ambition than it does aboutTheodosius' constitutional arrangements.
Theodosius' importance rests on the fact that he founded a dynasty whichcontinued in power until the death of his grandson Theodosius II in 450.This ensured a continuity of policy which saw the emergence of NiceneChristianity as the orthodox belief of the vast majority of Christiansthroughout the middle ages. It also ensured the essential destruction ofpaganism and the emergence of Christianity as the religion of the state,even if the individual steps in this process can be difficult toidentify. On the negative side, however, he allowed his dynasticinterests and ambitions to lead him into two unnecessary and bloody civilwars which severely weakened the empire's ability to defend itself in theface of continued barbarian pressure upon its frontiers. In this manner,he put the interests of his family before those of the wider Romanpopulation and was responsible, in many ways, for the phenomenon to whichwe now refer as the fall of the western Roman empire.
Secondary Sources -
Birley, A.R. The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981).
Blockley, R.C. "The Division of Armenia between the Romans and Persiansat the End of the Fourth Century AD." Historia 36 (1987), 222-34.
Bratoz, R. (ed.). Westillyricum und Nordostitalien in der SpätromischenZeit (Narodni muzej. 1996).
Cameron, A. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius.(Oxford, 1970).
________. "Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho." HarvardStudies in Classical Philology 73 (1969), 247-80.
Croke, B. "Arbogast and the Death of Valentinian." Historia 25 (1976),235-44.
Duval, Y.-M. "Les aurea fulmina des Alpes Juliennes: le role des statuesdivines dans les lieux strategiques." in Bratoz, R (1996), 95-108.
Errington, R.M. "The Accession of Theodosius I." Klio 78 (1996a), 438-53.
________. "Theodosius and the Goths." Chiron 26 (1996b), 1-27.
________. "Church and State in the First Years of Theodosius I." Chiron27 (1997a), 21-72.
________. "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of TheodosiusI." Klio 79 (1997b), 398-443.
Friell, G. and Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. (London,1994).
Heather, P. Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford, 1991).
Hoffmann, D. Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum.(Dusseldorf, 1969).
Kovac, M. "Bora or Summer Storm: Meteorological Aspect of the Battle atFrigidus." in Bratoz, R. (1996), 109-19.
Matthews, J.F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364-425.(Oxford, 1975)
McLynn, N. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital.(Berkeley, 1994).
Nixon, C.E.V. and Rodgers, B.S. The Panegyrici Latini: Introduction,Translation and Historical Commentary (Berkeley, 1994).
Rebenich, S. "Gratian, a Son of Theodosius, and the Birth of GallaPlacidia." Historia 34 (1985), 372-85.
Sivan, H. "Was Theodosius I a Usurper ?" Klio 78 (1996), 198-211.
Shahid, I. Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century (Washington DC,1984).
Springer, M. "Die Schlacht am Frigidus als quellenkundliches undliteraturgeschichtliches Problem." in Bratoz, R. (1996), 45-93.
Vanderspoel, J. Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty,and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995).
Woods, D. "Julian, Arbogastes, and the Signa of the Ioviani and theHerculiani." Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 6 (1995), 61-68.
Notes
On his origin at Cauca, see Zos. 4.24.4. His date of birth iscalculated from his death in his fiftieth year in January 395, Epit.48.19. The name of his mother is preserved only at Epit. 48.1.
Pan. Lat. 2(12).5.2 preserves the fullest surviving account of themovements of Theodosius the Elder throughout his career, but fails tonote his rank or position at any particular time. On this passage, seeNixon and Rodgers (1994), 517-19. Amm. Marc. 28.3.9 proves that hesucceeded Jovinus as the magister equitum praesentalis following hisreturn in late 368 from an expedition to Britain. He is normallyidentified as a comes rei militaris before this, with little effort todefine what exactly is meant by this term. See Birley (1981), 333-39. Ibelieve that he succeeded Charietto as the vicarius of the magisterequitum praesentalis Jovinus in early 365 and retained this post until hesucceeded Jovinus in 368.
On his service in Britain, see Zos. 4.24.4. On his position as duxMoesiae, see Amm. Marc. 29.6.15; Zos. 4.16.6. He had presumably served onhis father's staff as a protector domesticus, a member of the imperialbodyguard seconded to his command. Note, for example, that the tenprotectores domestici who had accompanied the magister militum perGallias Ursicinus to Cologne in 355 had consisted of friends andrelatives for the most part (Amm. Marc. 15.5.22).
Epit. 48.1; Oros. 7.34.2; Cons. Constant. s.a. 379 (exact date).
Pan. Lat. 2(12).9; Theod. HE 5.5.1-2. It has traditionally beenaccepted that the emperor Gratian recalled Theodosius to active serviceonly sometime after the battle of Adrianopole on 9 August 378, i.e., thathe remained in retirement in Spain for almost three years 376-78. See,e.g., Sivan (1996), 199. But Errington (1996a), 438-40, exposesTheodoret's account of Theodosius' recall to service for the fictitiousnonsense it is and dates his recall as early as late 377.
See, e.g., Nixon and Rodgers (1994), 453; Williams and Friell(1994), 23-4. Differences sometimes emerge, as when Errington (1996a),443-44, argues that their enemies forced the younger Theodosius intoretirement first before they dared to move against his father, or whenMatthews (1975), 93, claims that the younger Theodosius "withdrew to ajudicious retirement" after his father's execution as if he did soentirely voluntarily. Nevertheless, all accept that Theodosius the Elderwas executed at Carthage, and that his execution and his son's"retirement" should both to be dated to the winter of 375/76.
E.g., Oros. 7.33.7 is our only source to locate Theodosius' death atCarthage, and only because Carthage was the administrative centre for theregion. He may also have been influenced by the fact that Arcadius hadhad the rebellious comes Africae Heraclianus executed at Carthage ca.413. In contrast, Amm. Marc. 29.5.1-55 reveals not the slightestindication that Theodosius had visited Carthage even once during his stayin Africa ca. 373-4. Writing ca. 417, during the reign of Theodosius'grandson Arcadius, Orosius was principally concerned to fill in theflattering assumption that the father of such a pious dynasty had surelyreceived baptism before his death. As for the date of Theodosius'execution, Jerome is our only source, and he dates it to 376 (Chron. s.a.376). Note, however, that he does not date the execution of Theodosiusthe Elder alone to 376 but associates it with the deaths of many othernotables also. If he is not simply mistaken, as he is on other occasions,it is arguable that he refers to a series of executions, which culminatedin 376, rather than that they all necessarily occurred in the same year.
Amm. Marc. 29.6.13-14. These legions have traditionally beenidentified with two palatine legions whose names are recorded together inthe Notitia Dignitatum, the Pannoniciani seniores (ND Oc. 5.149) and theMoesiaci seniores (ND Oc. 5.150), e.g. by Hoffmann (1969), 433. There areseveral objections to this identification. The first must be that theirtitles do not actually match. Ammianus records the names of otherpalatine legions in the exact form that they have been preserved by theNotitia so that we cannot simply assume some literary licence on his partin this instance. He refers to the Primani (ND Or. 6.45) by their correcttitle (Amm. 16.12.49) and the Divitenses Iuniores and the TuncgrecaniIuniores by theirs (Amm. 26.6.12), and to the Lanciarii and the Mattiarii(Amm. 21.13.16, 31.13.8), whether seniores or iuniores (ND Or. 5.42,6.42; Or. 6.47, Oc. 7.30), as such rather than as, say, the legiolanciaria or the legio mattiaria. Next, a pair of palatine legions, aso-called "brigade" in the manner of the Pannoniciani seniores and theMoesiaci seniores should have been long used to operating together so itis difficult to understand why they should have quarrelled so badly here.Next, one notes that Ammianus does not say where exactly they came from,and the speed with which they arrived upon the scene inclines one tosuspect that they had not had to come very far at all. Finally, it muststrike one as a remarkable coincidence that the first two palatinelegions to arrive in response to attacks upon the Pannonias and MoesiaPrima should have been named after those very regions.
Zos. 4.9.3-4.
See Amm. Marc. 16.11.6-7 (dismissal of Valentinian) and Amm. Marc.16.4.3, 7.1, 8.1 (dismissal of Marcellus).
Cf. his earlier petition on behalf of the advocate Africanus whohad merely wanted a second provincial governorship, Amm. Marc. 29.3.6. Inresponse, Valentinian had ordered him to behead Africanus. It is beyondthe scope of the present article to explore the evidence in full, but Ibelieve that Theodosius the Elder reached the Pannonian provinces inorder to lead their defence against the Sarmatians sometime during late374, and that he then reported back to Valentinian himself at Trier. Heis probably identifiable as one of the "missing" consuls for 375. Jeromeis the only author to explain why there appear to have been no consulsfor 375, claiming that the consuls remained the same as the previous yearbecause of the Sarmatian devastation of the Pannonian provinces (Chron.s.a. 375). This was true in a round about way, in so far as the Sarmatianattacks did set off a chain of events that resulted in the execution ofTheodosius the Elder and the disgrace of his consular colleague, but notin the way that Jerome implies. The Sarmatian attack upon the Pannoniaswas an embarassment rather than a serious military crisis, as is bestrevealed by the fact that it did not provoke Valentinian I to leave hiscapital at Trier until the spring of 375, when the worst was over. Ifsuch an attack had prevented Valentinian from appointing new consuls for375, then it is a wonder that there were any new consuls at all duringthe far more serious crises of the subsequent decades.
Pan. Lat. 2(12).10.2-3; Themist. Or. 14.182c, 15.198a. This was thecampaign which Valentinian himself had been planning when he died.
Of Gratian's command staff in early 379, the names of his magistripraesentales Merobaudes and Frigeridus betray their German origin, as dothe names of his two western comites domesticorum Richomeres andMallobaudes. Finally, of the the two vicarii of his two magistripraesentales, Sebastianus had been killed at Adrianople, while Nannienus'name betrays his non-Roman origin also.
For detailed analyses of our meagre sources for this war, seeHeather (1991), 122-56; Errington (1996b).
Errington (1996b), 22-27.
Zos. 4.55.2-3. Strictly speaking, he was a magister militum (orutriusque militiae) praesentalis, probably prima (ND Or. 5.1), by thetime of his death, since Theodosius had merged the infantry and cavalrybranches of the army in the meantime, perhaps ca.388.
Zos. 4.25.2. Modares was himself a Goth, a member of the royalfamily, and is normally identified as a magister militum of some type. Noemperor would have appointed any barbarian defector to such a high rankwithout first having tested his ability and loyalty at a lower level ofcommand. So one suspects that he is identifiable with the dux Arabiae towhom Ammianus refers as Munderichus (Amm. 31.3.5), and that Ammianus, orhis source, have confused Modares' name with his Gothic title reiks"leader of men".
Zos. 4.30-32.
Cons. Constant. s.a. 380.
Zos. 4.32-33.
Cons. Constant. s.a. 381.
Ibid. s.a. 382.
Heather (1991), 157-92.
Zos. 4.45.3.
Zos. 4.51; Claud. De Cons. Stil.. 1.94-6.
Cons. Constant. s.a. 386; Zos. 4.35.1, 38-39.
Pan. Lat. 2(12).22.3. See Shahid (1984), 203-21.
In general, see Blockley (1987).
Pan. Lat. 2(12).24.1.
The nature of Maximus' command at the time of his revolt is amatter of great controversy. He is normally identified as one of thecomes Britanniarum, the dux Britanniarum or the comes litoris Saxonici.See Birley (1981), 346-52. I suspect that he was the vicarius of themagister peditum praesentalis Merobaudes and that he commanded a smallexpedition to Britain ca. 382 similar to that which Theodosius had ledthere in 367/68.
Them. Or. 18. See Vanderspoel (1995), 187-216, esp. 210.
Zos. 4.42-43.
Joh. Ant. frag. 187 (Müller) = Eunap. frag. 58.2 (Blockley).
Claud. Gild. 154; Jer. Epp. 79.2, 123.17.
On Sicily, see Ambr. Ep. 73(40).22-23. Zos. 4.46.1 preserves aridiculous story that Valentinian's mother Justina sailed across theIonian Sea to Italy with some of her children, and that Maximus hadinitially assembled his fleet in order to capture her. He then kept thefleet in being because he feared that Theodosius was about to launch anaval expedition. It suffices to note that this would have leftValentinian's family stranded behind enemy lines in danger of being usedas hostages against him. McLynn (1994), 293-4, assumes that Valentinianhimself led a naval expedition which gained the victory at Sicily. ButValentinian had no military experience, and if he and Theodosius hadreally wanted to open a second front, then it would have been far lessrisky, and potentially far more beneficial, had they sent their forces toland on the eastern coast of peninsular Italy instead, as far north aspossible. They would then have been able to strike Maximus' main lines ofdefence in northern Italy from behind.
Ambr. Ep. 73(40).23; Pan. Lat. 2(12).34-35.
Zos. 4.53. According to Zosimus, Arbogast claimed that Valentinianhad not given him his command in the first place so he could not now takeit away from him. This is often interpreted as evidence that Theodosiushad somehow imposed him upon Valentinian and that he was the tool bywhich Theodosius had continued to control his western colleague. Itrefers, rather, to the fact that he had essentially "inherited" the postof magister peditum praesentalis from his father Bauto ca. 386. Neitheremperor had been in a position to nominate an alternative candidate tosucceed Bauto at the time.
The ancient sources disagree about the circumstances ofValentinian's death. See Soc. HE 5.25; Soz. HE 7.22; Philost. HE 11.1. Ingeneral, see Croke (1976) who concludes that Valentinian probably didcommit suicide
See Springer (1996).
E.g. Soc. 5.25; Soz. 7.24; Theod. HE 5.24; Claud. III Cons. Hon.89-98. For a modern, rational interpretation of this "miracle", see Kovac(1996).
Oros. 7.35.16 (for Arbitio's name); Ruf. HE 2.33; Soz. 7.24.5. Theecclesiastical historians have exaggerated the religious aspects of theconflict for ideological reasons, although many modern commentators havetraditionaly accepted their propaganda at its face value. The claims, forexample, that Eugenius' forces erected statues of Jupiter in the Alps(Aug. Civ. Dei 5.26), or that they bore an image of Hercules at theirhead as they marched (Theod. HE 5.24) are not to be taken literally. Theyhave their origin in a deliberate misrepresentation of the significanceof the fact that the two leading western military units, the Iovianiseniores and the Herculiani seniores, had probably restored theirstandards to what they imagined to be their traditional form. See Woods(1995). For a more traditional interpretation, see Duval (1996).
Soc. HE 5.6; Soz. HE 7.4. In general on this period, see Errington(1997a).
Chron. Pasch. s.a. 380; Malal. Chron. 13.36. Both sources describean attempt to assassinate an emperor, whom they identify as Gratian butthe date, location, and general circumstances of the attempt suggest thatthe anecdote which lies at their heart had originally described a plot toassassinate Theodosius.
Soc. HE 5.13.
C.Th. 16.10.10 (24 February 391), 16.10.11 (16 June 391), 16.10.12(8 November 392).
E.g., Williams and Friell (1994), 68-71.
Soz. HE 7.25; Ruf. HE 2.18; Aug. Civ. Dei 5.26; Theod. HE 5.17-18.See McLynn (1994), 315-30.
McLynn (1994), 330-35; Errington (1997b), passim.
For Theodosius' protection of temples, see C.Th. 16.10.8 (30November 382), Lib. Or. 30.49-51 (386). On the destruction of theSerapeum, see Soc. HE 5.16-17; Soz. HE 7.15; Ruf. HE 2.23.
Claud. Laus. Ser. 63-9.
Soc. HE 4.31; Philost. HE 10.7; Zos. 4.44.
Rebenich (1985), passim.
Many modern commentators follow Cameron (1970), 56, in dating themarriage of Serena and Stilicho to 384, although his conclusion, that itwas Serena herself, not Theodosius, who chose Stilicho as her husband,that it was "one of those very rare events in a royal family, a lovematch", ought to have occasioned greater scepticism. Much depends onone's interpretation of Claud. De Cons. Stil. 1.51-68, which records thatStilicho negotiated an important treaty with the Persians shortly beforehis marriage to Serena. I interpret this to refer to the treaty of 387 bywhich the Romans and Persians agreed upon the division of Armenia betweentheir empires. This means that Stilicho's daughter Maria can only havebeen about 10 years of age by the time of her marriage to Honorius inabout February 398. But this explains the tradition preserved at Zos.5.28.2, that Serena herself thought that Maria was too young formarriage, even if one cannot accept Zosimus' fanciful solution to thisproblem, that Serena managed to drug Honorius in order to prevent himfrom consummating the marriage, over a period of ten years apparently !
Relying principally on Zos. 4.59, Cameron (1969) argues thatTheodosius had appointed Stilicho as magister militum per Occidentem withcommand of all the western troops and the power to administer the westernempire in Honorius' name some three months before his death in January395. At that point, Theodosius made a vague statement entrusting his sonsto Stilicho which the latter interpreted in his own interest to mean thathis earlier regency over Honorius had now been extended over Arcadiusalso. But the office of magister militum per Occidentem, or whateverother title one wishes to use to describe the appointment of a singlesupreme military commander, was entirely without precedent and an obviousthreat to the independence of any emperor. One suspects, rather, thatTheodosius had appointed Stilicho to an entirely regular command, i.e. asmagister peditum praesentalis, at that point three months before hisdeath, and that Stilicho asserted a regency which he had yet to enjoyover either son.
Copyright (C) 1998, David Woods. This file may be copied on the conditionthat the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice,remain intact.
|
|
|
|
