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

Other Events:

• _UID: BD39FB071E8342A5BD1D90F1CE8F6A791BA0

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'unit?? ? la division de l'empireromain, 395-410: Essai sur la government imp?rial (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'imp?ratrice 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.

Arcadius married ?lia Eudoxia Of The Eastern Roman Empire on 27 Apr 395. ?lia (daughter of Bauto Of The Franks (Roman Consul)) was born in 377 in Frankish Gaul; died on 6 Oct 404. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. Flaccilla was born on 17 Jun 397; and died.
2. Pulcheria was born on 19 Jan 398-399; died in 453.
3. Arcadia was born on 3 Apr 400; and died.
4. Theodosius II (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 408-450) was born on 10 Apr 401 in Constantinople, Turkey; died on 28 Jul 450 in Constantinople, Turkey.
5. Marina was born on 10 Feb 403; and died.

Other Events:

• _UID: F6B181A29F7440F4BAB066FD85A94F167143

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 Sp?tromischenZeit (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 sp?tr?mische 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 (M?ller) = 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.

Flavius married ?lia Flavia Flaccilla Of Spain in 376. ?lia was born in 355 in Spain; died in 386. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events:

• _UID: 0F30F63848434BC9B6B315CAE9A84A124193

Notes:

End of this line.

Other Events:

• _UID: 5218B9AC33934ED4B1E3D8B8545448824D5A

Notes:

Theodosius was Valentinian I's general in Amiens, France in 367. He wasexecuted in Carthage, Africa.

Flavius Theodosius was a major Roman general in Gaul and Britain, andfather of the Roman Emperor by the same name.

Flavius married Thermantia. Thermantia and died. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events:

• _UID: 91D025432A884DDB85C03F2C1DD5BCC3C41E