Arcadius I (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 395-408)

378 - 408  (30 years)

• Name	Arcadius I (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 395-408)
  Born	377-378	Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain
  Gender	Male
  _UID	BD39FB071E8342A5BD1D90F1CE8F6A791BA0
  Died	May 408	Rome, Italy
  Person ID	I27165	Carney Wehofer 2024 Genealogy
  Last Modified	5 Feb 2012

  
  

  Father	Flavius Theodosius I ('The Great') (Emperor Of The Roman Empire - 379-395),   b. 11 Jan 346-347, Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain ,   d. 17 Jan 394-395, Mediolanum (Milan), Italy  (Age 48 years)
  Mother	Ælia Flavia Flaccilla Of Spain,   b. 355, Spain ,   d. 386  (Age 31 years)
  Married	376
  Family ID	F11812	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family	Ælia Eudoxia Of The Eastern Roman Empire,   b. 377, Frankish Gaul ,   d. 6 Oct 404  (Age 27 years)
  Married	27 Apr 395
  Children	1. Flaccilla,   b. 17 Jun 397,   d. Yes, date unknown   2. Pulcheria,   b. 19 Jan 398-399,   d. 453  (Age 53 years)   3. Arcadia,   b. 3 Apr 400,   d. Yes, date unknown   4. Theodosius II (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 408-450),   b. 10 Apr 401, Constantinople, Turkey ,   d. 28 Jul 450, Constantinople, Turkey  (Age 49 years)   5. Marina,   b. 10 Feb 403,   d. Yes, date unknown
  Last Modified	29 Aug 2016
  Family ID	F2055	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  Aradius (c. 377-408), Eastern Roman emperor conjointly with his father,Theodosius I, from 383 to 395, then solely til 402, when he associatedhis son Theodosius II with his own rule. Frail and ineffectual, he wasdominated by his minsters, Rufinus, Eutropius, and Anthemius. His empirewas a prey to the Goths, and his consort Eudoxia abetted the persecutionof the patriarch St. John Chrysostom. [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995] From Geoffrey S. Nathan, University of California at Los Angeles: Introduction and Early Life - The ineffectual life and reign of FlaviusArcadius are of considerably less importance than the quite significantdevelopments that occurred during his reign. Born either in 377 or 378 tothen general Theodosius and Aelia Flavia Flacilla, he and his youngerbrother, Honorius, ruled the eastern and western halves of the RomanEmpire respectively from 395. Shortly after his birth, his father was raised to the imperial purple in379. Events in Illyricum with the massive influx of Ostrogothic andVisigothic peoples had resulted in the defeat of the Roman army and thedeath of the emperor, Valens. Theodosius' first task was to confront theVisigoths who had been ravaging the Balkans. Perhaps in the wake of thisdifficult and almost insurmountable task, the emperor wanted to insurethat his infant son would bear some legitimacy should he die on campaign.Whatever the reason, Arcadius was proclaimed Augustus in January of 383at the age of five or six. In the following year, his younger brother wasborn and it seems as if Theodosius initially had been interested inpreserving the theoretical position of his elder son. While Arcadiusenjoyed the status of Augustus, Honorius only achieved the office ofconsul posterior in 386. Perhaps the eastern emperor had wanted to avoidthe possible conflicts that arose earlier in the century with the familyof Constantine. Recent events in the west with the assassination ofGratian by Magnus Maximus may have also played a part: Theodosiusinitially had to leave the murder of his imperial colleague unavenged andleave the boy- emperor, Valentinian II, largely undefended. The profusionof emperors may well have been seen by Theodosius as kindling for civilwar. His own autocratic tendencies may have also meant that he saw onlyone possible successor for himself. Nevertheless, Theodosius gave Arcadius very little independence in earlylife. When he went to campaign against Magnus in the late 380's, heplaced his son under the Praetorian Prefect of the East, Tatian, who wasthe de facto emperor in Theodosius' absence. This began a long series ofregencies for Arcadius. The strength of Tatian's position with theeastern governing class made the office of Praetorian Prefect all themore powerful in Constantinople, which in turn made it easier to dominatefuture emperors. When Theodosius replaced Tatian with the more malleableand more ambitious Rufinus in 392, he had appointed a minister who wouldcentralize even greater authority under the prefecture. By 393, the emperor's situation had changed radically. When events in thewest demanded his attention again, Theodosius was in a much strongerposition. The ascendancy of the general, Arbogast, and his own puppetemperor, Eugenius, in the west provided Theodosius an opportunity and,indeed, the obligation to take full control of the Empire. The chance forhaving his own two sons ruling both halves of Rome not only seemedpractical and feasible, but such an arrangement would establish himselfas the head of a new dynasty. With thoughts in that direction, Honoriuswas made Augustus in 393 and accompanied his father west in the summer of394. Arcadius, although near his majority, was nevertheless placed againunder the guardianship (epitropos) of the Prefect of the East. In Januaryof 395, Theodosius the Great died and his two sons took theoreticalcontrol of the two halves of the Roman Empire. Early Reign and the Dominance of Rufinus and Eutropius (395-399) -Arcadius was eighteen when he assumed the throne in the east. We do notknow whether or not he was ready for the responsibilities. During themid-380's, the young emperor had been educated in part by Themistius, afamous pagan statesman, philosopher, and speaker. In what way he affectedArcadius is impossible to say, but surely his teachings must haveincluded statecraft. Perhaps because of this influence, the new emperor'sattempt to establish himself as an independent force can be seen in aseries of laws passed at his accession. In contrast to trying to create amilitary image for himself, which would not be allowed either by Rufinusor by the eastern court, he attempted to portray himself as a piousChristian emperor. He enacted several comprehensive laws against heresyand paganism. This was not necessarily an ineffectual strategy. By celebrating hisreligious piety, he expressed his power in the only way available to anemperor largely controlled by his ministers. He also perhaps sought togain support and power from the local governing and religious hierarchiesin Constantinople. Arcadius also perhaps thought that he was carrying onin the tradition of his father and so, by extension, might share in someof his glory. Rufinus in contrast wanted to tie himself to the emperorthrough a marriage connection to his daughter. But in April of 395,Arcadius had taken advantage of the Prefect's temporary absence to marryAelia Eudoxia, whose guardian, the general, Promotus, had been a bitterenemy of Rufinus. Arcadius had been aided in this move by his own grandchamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi), Eutropius, and it perhapsindicated the degree to which he wanted to be free of any regent. But in reality, Arcadius gained little if any power. Rufinus assumed fullcontrol of the east, and the Vandal Stilicho, Theodosius' closest advisorand general, took control of Honorius in the west. The tension betweeneast and west quickly grew when Stilicho, in command of all the easternand western armies, tried to press his guardianship over Arcadius aswell. Moreover, there was considerable resentment against Rufinus in theeast for using his office to greatly enrich himself and perhaps, too,because he was a westerner. Rufinus, understanding the perils around him,acted quickly. He had Arcadius demand the return of the eastern armies atonce. Stilicho acquiesced, perhaps because the general was basing hisclaim of guardianship on his own legitimacy: to have taken control of theeast and Arcadius by force would have undermined his position there andperhaps in the west. The soldiers returned under the command of theGothic general, Gainas. With the control of the field army, it seemed asif Rufinus was going to be more thoroughly in control of the east andover Arcadius. He did not long enjoy his victory. When Arcadius and Rufinus came togreet the armies at Hebdoman near Constantinople in November of 395, thesoldiers turned on the Praetorian Prefect and cut him down in front ofthe emperor. Whether Stilicho instigated the assassination is a matter ofsome debate, but if he did, he received no benefit from it. The armiesremained and Arcadius soon fell under the sway of other ministers.Nevertheless, despite the shock and fear Arcadius may have felt atwitnessing such a brutal murder, he probably missed Rufinus' presence notat all and even thought it might provide an opportunity to assert his ownauthority. For the bureaucracy, the death meant that maintaining civiliancontrol over the army was paramount to their own survival. Soon thereafter, Eutropius assumed Rufinus' place in dominating Arcadius.Since the grand chamberlain could control access to the emperor andcommanded the powerful palace bureaucracy, he was well-placed to dictatewhat and whom the emperor saw and heard. Military officers--frequentlyGermanic--who dominated the western government, were held suspect byfearful and jealous civil administrators in Constantinople. Eutropiusused that fear to his advantage and froze out any access they may havehad to the circles of power. His decision to effectively eliminate themilitary's input in decision-making would eventually lead to his demise. It is difficult to determine how popular Eutropius was either withArcadius or with the wider population. As a eunuch and a former slave,the sources generally portray him very negatively. He nevertheless seemsto have enjoyed some support from the emperor, likely aided by Eudoxiawith whom the grand chamberlain had close ties. The emperor happily tookannual vacations in Galatia, apparently upon the Eutropius' suggestion.Moreover, the chamberlain showed great personal courage and talent inleading a campaign against invading Huns in 397/8, for which he won theconsulship and the rank of patrician in the following year of 399. Healso seems to have gained considerable support from the local clergy byprocuring the patriarchate of Constantinople in 398 for John Chrysostom. Despite Eutropius' rise to power, however, eastern policy changed little.The religious policies of Theodosius and Arcadius continued, includingthe forced closure of pagan temples in Gaza. More significantly, tensionbetween the two halves of the empire persisted as Stilicho continued topress for his position as guardian. Although Stilicho led periodic raidsinto Greece and Thrace to attack the new Visigothic king, Alaric, hisvictories were incomplete and were more likely meant to keep the Germanicpeople out of western territory. This meant, among other things, that theVisigoths were an enduring problem for the east. Eutropius in turnsupported the revolt of the Count Gildo in Africa, which was underwestern control, in an attempt to destabilize Stilicho's control andfurther eastern domains. The failure of the revolt in 398 was the first step in Eutropius'downfall. The decision to exclude the military men of the period,particularly among the growing importance of Germanic officers, created adangerous situation. By 399, the dissatisfaction with east-west affairsand the Gildo fiasco resulted in a revolt by the Gothic count, Tribigild.He was apparently in collusion with Gainas, who had taken advantage ofthe crisis to be named chief general in the east (magister utriusquemilitiae). Gainas quickly reached an agreement with the rebel and part ofthe settlement was the dismissal of Eutropius, to which Arcadius--atEudoxia's urging--agreed. The chamberlain took refuge in the HagiaSophia, and was exiled to Cyprus. But shortly thereafter, in the autumnof 399, Eutropius was recalled, tried and executed in Chalcedon. The Age of Eudoxia (400-404)- The death of Eutropius precipitated aserious crisis. Gainas, who had wanted high office for years, now triedto force the hand of Arcadius. Having come to a quick resolution withTribigild, he moved from Thrace towards Constantinople in 400. With theGermanic troops supporting him, Gainas tried for six months to initiatehis own primacy-- including seizing the imperial palace--but whichfailed. He was forced to withdraw personally from the city to regroup andplanned to use his troops remaining there to seize the entire city. Butthey were slaughtered by the inhabitiants and he fled first to Thrace andthen to Asia. Eventually Gainas was killed by the Huns later in thatyear. His attempted coup ensured that Germanic officers would never againbe trusted by the eastern government and would forever be kept out of anyimportant decision-making roles. The likely successor to Eutropius had been the anti-Germanic leader,Aurelianus, who had succeeded to the Prefecture of the East in 399. ButGainas had exiled him, having forced Arcadius to hand him over, andalthough Aurelianus returned triumphantly after Gainas' departure, heappears to have lost his hold over the emperor. In the meantime, AeliaEudoxia had done much to forward her own place in the government. InJanuary of 400, she had been named Augusta, a singular distinctionoffered to only three other women in the previous century. Her positionthus gained a semi-official legitimacy afforded to very few Romanempresses. It has been assumed that because of her beauty, herintelligence, and her fecundity (she bore Arcadius five children), shewas able to assert her influence to a point where she was the new powerbehind the throne. That assessment, while held by many scholars, is not entirely accurate.While there were several events in which she played a crucial part, theywere not terribly important moments during Arcadius' reign. But becauseEudoxia was enormously wealthy, because she delivered a male heir in 401,and because she was involved in a highly publicized and drawn outpolitical fight with John Chrysostom, this belief that there was anassumption of power is based more on the notoriety of her acts than onactual control. The fact that there was no one clearly dominating thegovernment nor the emperor during this time implies perhaps that Arcadiushad more power during these five years of his reign than at any othertime. There are several indications that he did try to improve and assert hisown position. The emperor and his court immediately came to someunderstanding with the west. The east at the very least gave Honorius andStilicho moral support in their increasing problems with Alaric. In 402,the feeling of goodwill was sealed by a joint consulship between Arcadiusand his brother. The emperor also sought to establish his own militaryprowess and Christian piety with the erection of a column set up in theHippodrome of Constantinople in 402/3. The column depicted his militaryvictory over Gainas, crowned with a capital emblazoned with the Greekletters chi-rho, symbolizing his devotion to Christ. Arcadius' son,Theodosius II, was born in 401, and was quickly made Augustus at the ageof eight months. The eastern ruler was thus interested in assuring hisown dynasty. In all these things, the emperor was largely successful, but they werelargely overshadowed by the feud between his empress and the bishop ofConstantinople. Eudoxia had already shown herself able in pushing herinterests during the baptism of her son. The Bishop of Constantinople,however, was a much tougher opponent than her husband. John Chrysostom, astrong believer in social justice, had boorishly attacked Eudoxia andmany of her friends for the conspicuous luxury in which they lived anddisplayed themselves. At the height of these attacks, John compared theempress to Jezebel. Eudoxia in turn used her considerable influence toinflame hostility among the clergy against the bishop. Working throughBishop Theophilus of Alexandria, in 403 Chrysostom was deposed and forcedinto exile at a Church council convened by the emperor (the Synod of theOak at Chalcedon). However, there was soon such turmoil and uproar in theimperial city that the bishop was recalled a few days later. But thepublic feuding between Eudoxia and Chrysostom continued until at last shehad him banished again in 404, this time permanently. Among other things,it caused a breach between Arcadius and his brother, who had, with PopeInnocent I, tried to support Chrysostom. Eudoxia's victory was short-lived, however. In October of 404, theAugusta died of a miscarriage. Her death was seen by some as retributionfor dismissing John. Whatever the reason, her end also signaled acomplete retreat into the background by the emperor and no furtherinitiatives seem to have been pushed by the 27-year-old Augustus. The Final Years: Anthemius and Death (404-408)- The last years ofArcadius' reign were completely dominated by his Praetorian Prefect ofthe East, Anthemius. It was perhaps fitting that when the emperor seemsto have been most retiring, the most able and energetic of his highministers came to power. Anthemius worked hard to solve a series ofgovernmental abuses, continue to push for Christianization, and securethe east from attack. Anthemius first seems to have tried to reconcile with the west, so muchso that there was a joint consulship between Anthemius and Stilicho in405. This might have also been meant to symbolize the Prefect's newdominance, however. Additionally, a number of new laws were passed,curtailing paganism, Judaism and heresy. He tried to make use of thecontinuing problem of incoming Germanic peoples to combat the Isauriantribes which had been plaguing Asia Minor since 403. While it failed tohalt either group's incursions, it was nevertheless a practical andintelligent strategy. As a means of protecting the imperial capital,Anthemius also strengthened the walls around Constantinople. Our recordsfor the last years of Arcadius' rule are quite spotty, but the emperorhimself seems to have completely vanished, even symbolically, from thepolitical scene. In May of 408, Flavius Arcadius died at the age of 31 of unknown causes.Our only physical description of Arcadius is heavily influenced by thegenerally low regard in which he was held. The emperor was supposedlyshort, thin and dark-complected. A more kindly correspondent describedhim as good-natured and temperate. His son succeeded him without anycontroversy and the government remained unchanged. Arcadius thus left theworld much as he entered it: without much significance and overshadowedby more powerful forces. Assessment - Despite the ineffectual nature of Arcadius and his rule, anumber of significant changes occurred during his stewardship of theeastern empire. His inability to forcefully or at least effectivelygovern meant that there were few consistent or long-range goals of hisadministration. With the exception of trying to emphasize the emperor'spiety, an important development in the history of the Byzantine monarchy,Arcadius and his ministers were for the most part simply reacting toevents. The emperor became an even more remote figure to the general public. Evenin the capital city itself, he was rarely seen: we read in one accountthat people came running to see the emperor for the first time when hehappened to be praying in a local church. A series of "orientalizing"court practices no doubt continued in order to emphasize the symbolicseparation of the emperor from the rest of society. The hieratic, almostsemi- divine nature of the imperial person, also became a feature of theeastern ruler. Perhaps of greatest importance was the political and cultural splitbetween east and west. With the death of Theodosius, the two halves ofthe Roman Empire increasingly went their separate ways. For the mostpart, the west was thrown back upon its own resources, unable to dealwith the problems of the fifth century. The east proved more compact andmore resilient: it largely weathered the political storms from withoutand within. Moreover, Constantinople fully became the imperial capital of the east, aRoma nova. The emperor rarely left the city and the palace officialsbecame more influential than many of the more theoretically importantministers outside the city. Constantinople was also made anarchepiscopate and Chrysostom and others started to push strongly for itsprimacy in the east. Both public and private building projects beautifiedand enlarged the city. Under Arcadius' reign, it truly became the secondcity of the Roman Empire. Finally, the hard stance against Germanic officers in Roman governmentbecame a central feature in the east. While the reasons for thisdevelopment were inspired largely out of fear and perhaps racism, theeastern Roman Empire did manage to avoid the largely detrimentalsuccession of Germanic generalissimos who controlled the west in thefifth century. It also encouraged the eastern rulers in the followingcentury to take hard lines against other peoples, including theIsaurians, the Huns and the Persians. Taken in all, the era of Arcadiuswas far more important than Arcadius himself. He perhaps had his father'spretensions, but none of the skills or powers necessary to leave his markon the Empire. Sources and Bibliography - There are a number of sources that treat the age of Arcadius. Thehistorians Zosimus (New History), Socrates (Ecclesiastical History) andSozomon (Ecclesiastical History) offer the most complete accounts.Additionally, Bishop Synesius of Cyrene in letters and other works (Onthe Kingship and On Providence) specifically addresses a number of theproblems and issues going on in Constantinople and the imperial court atthat time. The letters and homilies of John Chrysostom are also ofenormous value and tell us more about the social history of the capitalthan any other source. Minor accounts include the Chronicon Paschale andthe Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes. Several important saints' lives,including the Life of Porphyry, provide valuable information about eventsoutside the capital. Finally, for the military and political organizationof the Roman Empire, the Notitia Dignitatum offers a static look at theearly fifth century. Cameron, Alan, and Long, Jacqueline (1993) Barbarians and Politics at theCourt of Arcadius (Berkeley). Demougeot, Emilienne (1951), De l'unité‚ … la division de l'empireromain, 395-410: Essai sur la government impérial (Paris). Holum, Kenneth (1982), Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley). Jones, A.H.M. et al. (1970), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire,vol. 1 (Cambridge). Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1991), Barbarians and Bishops. Army, Church, andState in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom (Oxford). Martindale, J.R. (1980), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire,vol. 2 (Cambridge). Seeck, Otto (1896), "Arcadius," in RE, v. 2 (Berlin), 1137-53. Van Ommeslaeghe, F. (1979) "Jean Chrysostome en conflit avecl'impératrice Eudoxie," Analecta Bollandiana 97, 131-59. Copyright (C) 1998, Geoffrey S. Nathan. This file may be copied on thecondition that the entire contents, including the header and thiscopyright notice, remain intact.