?lia Eudoxia Of The Eastern Roman Empire

Other Events:

• _UID: 26511234167644778E790F1730FE8C695477

Notes:

Eudoxia (d. 6 Oct 404), wife of, and a powerful influence over, theEastern Roman emperor Arcadius (reigned 383-408).

Her father was a Frankish chieftain and one-term Roman consul (385) namedBauto. The marriage (27 April 395) of Arcadius to Eudoxia was arranged byArcadius' corrupt minister, the eunuch Eutropius, who had supported thematch in order to undercut the position of a political rival. But Eudoxiacame to resent being dominated by Eutropius, and in 399 she helped tobring about his downfall. The period of Eudoxia's most decisive influenceover her ineffectual husband dates from her designation as augusta on 9Jan 400.

Although an earnest Christian, she quarreled bitterly with JohnChrysostom, partriarch of Constantinople, who attacked her and thefrivolity of her court in outspoken terms. In 404 she expelled him fromhis see and sent him into exile. Shortly afterward Eudoxia died from amiscarriage. But she had borne Arcadius four daughters and a son, whobecame the emperor Theodosius II (reigned 408-450). One of the daughters,Pulcheria, was regent for Theodosius II for several years.[Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995]

From Wendy Mayer, Australian Catholic University:

Much like the later empress Theodora, Eudoxia has been the subject of alargely negative press. Zosimus (Historia nova 5.18.8), writing almost acentury after her death, records that it was widely claimed that herfourth child, the only son and heir, Theodosius II, had been fathered byone of her husband's courtiers, John; and himself goes on to describe heras "abnormally willful", stating that she ultimately served theinsatiable desires of the palace eunuchs and the women who surroundedher, by whom, he alleges, she was controlled (5.24.2). In a continuationof the use of excessively emotive terms he describes her attitude towardsthe bishop of Constantinople at that time, John Chrysostom, as one of"hatred" (5.23.2). Philostorgius, who lived in Constantinople throughoutArcadius' reign, is slightly more positive in that he states that "thewoman was not a dullard like her husband" and that "she possessed nosmall degree of barbarian arrogance" (HE 11.6). Ps-Martyrius, also adirect contemporary, in his funeral oration on John Chrysostom alludes toher as a second Jezebel, a captive of the devil "clothed in theinsatiable power of greed and considerable wickedness" (P 478a-b).The overwhelming image of the empress as, at best, emotionally volatileis not helped by Socrates' allegation that, on hearing that Eudoxia wasmachinating to convoke a second synod against him, John Chrysostompreached a notorious sermon which began: "Again Herodias rages?again shedances, again she seeks to have the head of John on a plate" (HE6.18.4-5).

From such tenuous roots, a variety of negative portrayals of Eudoxia havegrown. At the very least, Eudoxia is usually said to have moved withfellow conspirators to take over power on the death of Eutropius. Atthe extreme she has been characterized as "cruel, full of hatred, greedyfor money and honors, hot-tempered, of a corrupt nature, with a warpedconscience", totally subject to her passions, "employing in turnssubterfuge and violence in order to satisfy her ambitions" - in short,all of the worst excesses that one would expect of a woman of barbarianlineage. Most views fall somewhere in between, but the majorityinclude elements of "barbarian" volatility and of the notion of a power-and glory-hungry individual. The few moderating views have beenthose of Geoffrey Nathan, who argues that Eudoxia is more notorious thanher real influence upon the eastern principate warrants, and KennethHolum, who reviews and presents the details of Eudoxia's life as empresswith a dispassionate eye.

When attempting to recover the historical Eudoxia it takes a great dealof care to sift fact from fiction. In particular, the sources which'document' her relationship with John Chrysostom and with other bishopswho visited Constantinople during her short life, reveal a side toher role as empress which has been either underestimated or overlooked.Attention to the way in which Eudoxia involved herself in ecclesiasticalaffairs not only restores some much-needed balance to our picture of her,but also helps to bring to light some of the motives behind the morenegative of the reactions to her in the sources.

Eudoxia's Early Life - Little is known about Eudoxia's early life, otherthan that she was the daughter of Bauto (Philostorgius, HE 11.6), a Frankof some prominence in the western court, since he was magister militum inthe early 380s under Gratian and a consul in 385. Holum claims thather mother was Roman and that she was therefore only a semibarbara, butit is not clear from what source he derives that information.Whatever the case, it is evident from the way she is portrayed in thesources that her "barbarian" ancestry was sufficient for the label to beused to effect against her. We next hear of her at Constantinople in thecontext of the household of Promotus (Zos., 5.3.2), which gives rise tothe assumption that she had somehow made her way to the eastern capitalafter her father's death in 388. Since Promotus was magistermilitum in the east in 386-91, with a common link with Bauto in theperson of Arbogastes, who succeeded Bauto as magister militum inthe west, it is possible that the transition of Eudoxia from her father'shousehold to that of Promotus may have occurred before Bauto's death andhave had something to do with Promotus' elevated status in the easterncourt at that time and her father's ambitions. Whatever the case, asHolum has noted, Zosimus asserts that after Promotus' death in 392,his two sons either lived with or moved in the ambit of the sons(Honorius and Aracadius) of the emperor, Theodosius, and that one ofPromotus' sons had Eudoxia with him. If this is the case, then Eudoxiawas raised in close proximity to the eastern court, under the tutelage offirst Promotus and then his widow, Marsa, and was well known to Arcadiusbefore their marriage. In support of a privileged upbringing and perhapsalso the possibility that she was being groomed as a vehicle for herfather's or foster-father's ambitions, is the information that Eudoxiahad access to education, since we are told that her former tutorPansophius was consecrated bishop of Nicomedia in 402 (Soz., HE 8.6.6).

Why Eudoxia was Arcadius' bride of choice, and why the wedding wasconducted on 27 April 395, scarcely three months after the death of hisfather on 17 January of that year and well before Theodosius' body hadarrived back in Constantinople for burial, are open to debate, but bestexplained by either the desire of the grand chamberlain Eutropius towrest control of the young emperor away from Rufinus, the praetorianprefect of the east and appointed guardian, or the desire of the youngemperor himself to take control of his own life. Several factorslead to this conclusion. Rufinus was distracted on the death ofTheodosius by Stilicho's attempt to take control of both east and west;Promotus and Rufinus had been bitter enemies and it had been Rufinus whohad engineered Promotus' downfall (Zos., 4.51); and Rufinus had adaughter of marriageable age through whom he intended to secure hiscontrol over Arcadius. Under these conditions, whatever the motivation,Arcadius' selection of and swift marriage to a wife from the household ofPromotus would have been a slap in the face to the ambitions of Rufinus.To soften the story and to account for Arcardius' choice of Eudoxia as abride over the daughter of Rufinus, it is alleged that Eudoxia was ofextraordinary beauty and that Eutropius manipulated Arcadius intofavoring her by showing him a portrait (Zos. 5.3), but it is unlikelythat this is more than a convenient fiction, especially so when weconsider that they had known each other for some six or seven years.

Eudoxia's role at court - It is only after her rise to the position ofempress, namely in the nine and a half years between 27 April, 395 andher premature death on 6 October, 404 that we have an opportunity toobserve Eudoxia at work, and then only in a very piecemeal way. From thepoint of view of her role as a Roman matron and as the vehicle forsecuring the Theodosian dynasty, Eudoxia was a model consort. Once shefell pregnant in late 396, she produced children with increasingrapidity. Out of seven pregnancies, five children survived infancy(Flaccilla b. 17 June, 397; Pulcheria b. 19 January, 399; Arcadia b. 3April, 400; Theodosius II b. 10 April, 401; and Marina b. 10 February,403). If ps-Martyrius is to be believed, two pregnancies (due latein 403 and late in 404, respectively) ended not in miscarriages, aspreviously supposed, but stillbirths, the second leading to the death ofthe empress from hemorrhaging and infection.
The precise nature of Eudoxia's role in political affairs is moredifficult to assess. It is probable that her fecundity gave herconsiderable standing at court. It is also clear that in the progress ofevents the rise to dominance of the Gothic general Gainas, the dismissalof Eutropius from office in late July or early August 399, the latter'sexecution in mid-September or later in 399, and the subsequentproclamation of Eudoxia as Augusta on 9 January, 400 are connected andwere defining points in the lives of both Eudoxia and her husband. Whowas behind the move to have the honorific title bestowed on her, however,and what it meant in effect, are matters of dispute. In terms ofher standing within the eastern capital and provinces her elevation toAugusta did result in a real and documentable change in status. Eudoxiawas now permitted to wear the paludamentum of purple and the imperialdiadem. From the time of her elevation until her death coins were struckin gold, silver and bronze by the eastern mints. These bore images of herclothed as an Augusta, with the cognomen Aelia, and on the obverse apicture of a disembodied hand reaching down to crown her with a wreath.As Holum has pointed out, the cognomen and the image of the hand of Godwere all carefully selected iconographic tools designed to cement herplace in the Theodosian succession and to promote the divine origins ofher coronation. In addition to the minting of coins, not long afterthe proclamation official images of Eudoxia (laureatae), requiring apublic reception similar to those of a male Augustus, were circulatedthroughout the provinces and within a few years had reached Italy and thewestern court, leading to a letter of criticism to Arcadius fromHonorius. The silver statue of Eudoxia erected on a porphyry columnand marble base in the Forum Augusteum of Constantinople by the urbanprefect Simplicius in late 403, is an example of support in atleast inner eastern imperial circles for the public promotion of theempress as Augusta.

The image of Eudoxia as the symbolic partner in a divinely institutedimperium, that was so carefully and widely cultivated at a public level,however, can not be thought to reflect the workings of the easternprincipate in practice. Whatever the speculation at the time about herprivate role in court intrigue and in the twin exiles of John Chrysostom,Eudoxia had no legislative capacity, no imperium in any concrete sense,and there are no grounds for thinking that within the political sphere ofthe palace she ever overtly moved beyond the constraints imposed uponher. In line with Nathan's argument regarding Arcadius' activities duringthe years 400-404, it would be a mistake to see her as a partner inpower. On the other hand, the sources do suggest that it is valid to viewher as nonetheless powerful by virtue of her role as a conduit to theemperor's favors. Whether Eudoxia was manipulated by others in thisregard, as Zosimus alleges, or whether she used her position tomanipulate for her own ends those who sought her assistance, is difficultto determine.

Eudoxia as patron of the Nicene church - Where we do see Eudoxiaexercising independent authority is not in the political realm but theecclesiastical. Holum has noted her patronage of the nighttime anti-Arianprocessions instigated in Constantinople by the Nicene bishop, to whichshe contributed at her own expense silver crosses with candles and theservices of one of her eunuchs, Brison, as choirmaster. Her role inthe spectacular public events surrounding the importation of new martyrs'remains to Constantinople is also significant. On at least oneoccasion she persuaded Arcadius to stay home on the initial day of thecelebrations, instead drawing all eyes to herself by solemnly followingthe coffin throughout the night, divested of her Augustal clothing andbodyguards, and participating prominently in the vigil at themartyrium. We see the same focus on the empress as the half of theimperial couple concerned with religious affairs in the eventssurrounding John Chrysostom's return to Constantinople after his firstbrief exile. Eudoxia is the sole imperial representative in the publicadventus ceremony played out on the Bosporus, where again she is seenexhibiting her piety (eusebeia) prominently in the midst of thepopulace.
The impression that Eudoxia seized the model of the emperor as patron ofthe church that had been established by Constantine and then, on herelevation to Augusta, moved to detach the role from Arcadius and toappropriate it for herself, creating an identity which allowed her tooperate by divine mandate at her husband's side, yet on her owncognizance, is reinforced by other events. Palladius (Dial. 8) andSozomen (HE 8.8) are both clear that, when the "Origenist" monks fromEgypt appeal directly to Eudoxia for assistance, it is she who decreesthat a synod be convoked and Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, becalled to answer his case before it. Palladius adds that she was wellinformed as to the circumstances of the monks' case before theyapproached her. Neither expresses any surprise at the authority of heractions. Again, at the time of the dispute between John Chrysostom andSeverian of Gabala, it is Eudoxia who appeals to John to reconcilehimself with Severian and who then forces his hand by recalling Severianto Constantinople from Chalcedon (Socr., HE 6.11; Soz., HE 8.10). It isalso telling that in the months prior to John's second and final exile,when bishops who supported his cause were attempting to sway imperialopinion, it is to Eudoxia that appeals were addressed, not her husband(Palladius, Dial. 9).

Assessment - When the sources present an empress, on the one hand, astotally manipulated, and, on the other, as the machinator in variousplots, while at the same time playing on conventional stereotypes of thebarbarian woman, it sends up a flag of warning. Eudoxia exhibits many ofthe same qualities (piety, humility, fecundity) as her predecessorFlaccilla, who like her was a barbara, was honored with the titleAugusta, and saw her imperial image disseminated on coins and other mediathroughout the provinces. Yet the two have received a markedlydifferent reception. This requires some explanation. Eudoxia becameexposed as a target on two fronts. The first was her proclamation asAugusta only six months into her third pregnancy, before she had borne amale heir for the principate. It is possible that the subsequent birth ofa daughter led people to question the appropriateness of the move andcontributed to the rumor, when she finally bore a son in her fourthpregnancy, that he had been fathered elsewhere. The second front was heradoption of the role of patron of the imperially favored (i.e. Nicene)church. While her guiding hand on this front enabled her to help directthe development of the dynastic religion for her husband and children, itleft her dangerously exposed to criticism by those who objected to thedirections in which she bestowed her largesse and to the content of herdecisions. It is in this light that we should view the charges that shewas "arrogant", that she "hated" the bishop of Constantinople andactively sought his downfall, and that she had embarked upon a "waragainst the church". Her contribution to ecclesiastical affairs atConstantinople, and throughout the eastern provinces via the bishops whosought her patronage when visiting the capital, needs acknowledgment. Itis also probable that, through establishing a model for the engagement ofimperial women of the east at a high level in the ecclesiastical sphere,she paved the way for her daughter, Pulcheria.

Bibliography -
For the sake of completeness a number of older works have been included.Those of von Hahn-Hahn, Seeck and Holum represent the few in whichEudoxia has been examined in her own right. More frequently she has beendepicted in terms of her "conflict" with the bishop John Chrysostom. Thechapter devoted to her by Holum remains the most complete study to date.

Dacier, H., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la femme chr?tienne au IVe si?clede l'?glise grecque, Paris, 1907, 45-116.
Funk, F.X., "Johannes Chrysostomus und der Hof von Konstantinopel",Theologische Quartalschrift 57 (1875) 449-80
Hahn-Hahn, I. von, Eudoxia die Kaiserin. Ein Zeitgem?lde aus dem 5.Jahrhundert, Mainz, 1866.
Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in LateAntiquity, Berkeley, 1982, 48-78.
Ludwig, F., Der hl. Johannes Chrysostomus in seinem Verh?ltnis zumbyzantinischen Hof, Braunsberg, 1883.
Mayer, W., "Constantinopolitan Women in Chrysostom's Circle", VigiliaeChristianae 53 (1999) 265-88.
Seeck, O., art. "Eudoxia. 1)", Pauly-Wissowa 6 (1909) coll. 917-25.
Van Ommeslaeghe, F., "Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l'imp?ratriceEudoxie. Le dossier et les origines d'une l?gende", Analecta Bollandiana97 (1979) 131-59.

Notes -
The Greek term for "woman" used by Philostorgius (to gynaion) has apatronizing, even contemptuous ring.
Ps-Martyrius has recently been identified as Cosmas, a deacon whohad been baptized by John Chrysostom and who was an ardent supporter ofhis cause. The funerary speech itself has been dated to the winter of407/8, making it a critical witness to events at Constantinople in theyears 398-407. See T.D. Barnes, "The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom(BHG3 871 = CPG 6517)", Studia Patristica 37 (2001) 328-45, who providesa translation of the passages in which Cosmas (Ps-Martyrius) describeswith relish the still-birth suffered by Eudoxia at the time of each ofChrysostom's exiles (336-7). It is noteworthy that he uses the same termas Philostorgius for "the woman", when referring to Eudoxia, which Barnestranslates as "the hag". For Ps-Martyrius Eudoxia is the instigator of awar against the church (P 524b), which Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria,joins as co-conspirator.
Socrates says that the sermon simply incited the empress to evengreater anger, thus reinforcing the image that the alleged sermonprovokes.
See most recently R.C. Blockley, "The Dynasty of Theodosius", in A.Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII. TheLate Empire A.D. 337-425, Cambridge, 1998, 116: "The empress Eudoxia, inalliance with members of the senatorial ?lite, moved to take overpower?"; and 117: "Eudoxia and her allies dominated the government of theeast for the next four years".
H. Dacier, Saint Jean Chrysostome et la femme chr?tienne au IVesi?cle de l'?glise grecque, Paris, 1907, 47: "Eudoxie, cruelle, haineuse,avide d'argent et d'honneurs, ?me emport?e, nature vici?e, conscienced?voy?e?"; and 58: "Nous l'avons dit, depuis qu'elle ?tait imp?ratrice,Eudoxie n'ob?issait qu'? ses passions: injuste, cruelle, elle ?tait femme? ne reculer devant rien pour la satisfaction de ses app?tits, employanttour ? tour la ruse et la violence pour satisfaire ses ambitions". Inadopting this view she builds on the scholarship of Am?d?e Thierry andAim? Puech before her.
C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time II. Constantinople, eng.trans., Westminster MD, 1960, 32 describes her as possessed of "avivacious, sanguine temperament" and proceeds to damn her with faintpraise: "Eudoxia was not without good qualities. At the side of anupright man, she might have become a distinguished empress. But naturalstrength of character was lacking in her, and as far as guiding theEmperor was concerned, she was as yet too young, too inexperienced and,above all, too feminine. Her credulity, and her hasty passionatedisposition were soon made the most of, by all sorts of tale-bearing andinsinuations" (33). This view that her pairing with a "weak" emperorbrought out her vanity and ambitions can be seen in F.X. Funk, "JohannesChrysostomus und der Hof von Konstantinopel", Theologische Quartalschrift57 (1875) 458: "An der Seite eines schwachen und beschr?nkten Gatten, derstets das Bed?rfnis empfand, von Andern geleitet zu werden, mu?te sieselbst die Herrschaft an sich ziehen, wenn sie nicht unter dem Befehleines Dritten stehen wollte, und es war ihr nicht genug, die obersteLeitung der Gesch?fte thats?chlich in ihrer Hand zu haben, sie wollteauch rechtlich und gesetzlich Herrscherin sein, vertauschte darum mitBeginn des Jahres 400 ihren seitherigen Titel Nobilissima mit dem TitelAugusta und lie?, um gleich dem Kaiser die Huldigung und Berehrung desVolkes in ihrem Bildni? entgegen zu nehmen, ihre Statue in den Provinzendes Reiches umherf?hren." J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of JohnChrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London, 1995, 110, who presents aless emotive view, follows Philostorgius in stating that she outstrippedArcadius in intelligence and therefore quickly dominated him, and in theuse of adjectives like "volatile" and "impulsive" (272), and "vivaciousand strong-willed" (110). Cf. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians andBishops. Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom,Oxford, 1990, who calls her "passionate and easily offended" (196) and"extremely strong-willed and at the same time hypersensitive" (202).
Arcadius, DIR: "While there were several events in which she playeda crucial part, they were not terribly important moments duringArcardius' reign". Liebeschuetz, Barbarians, 196-202 also downgrades herrole.
Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity,Berkeley, 1982, 48-78.
In particular, Palladius' Dialogue; the church histories ofSocrates, Sozomen and Theodoret; and the Life of Porphyry by Mark theDeacon.
PLRE I, 159-60 s.v. Flavius Bauto.
Theodosian Empresses, 52.
Holum, loc. cit.; Seeck, "Eudoxia. 1)", Pauly-Wissowa 6 (1909) 917.
PLRE I, 750-1 s.v. Flavius Promotus. The careers of Bauto andPromotus have many points in common and are markedly similar.
Theodosian Empresses, 52 n. 18.
The second view is proposed by Nathan, Arcadius.
For sources for the names and dates see the documentation providedin PLRE II, 410 s.v. Aelia Eudoxia 1. The eldest, Flaccilla, died before408, since she is not mentioned among the children who survived theirfather (Soz., HE 9.1).
See n. 2 above.
Regarding the dates see W. Mayer, "'Les hom?lies de s. JeanChrysostome en juillet 399'. A second look at Pargoire's sequence and thechronology of the Nov? homili? (CPG 4441)", Byzantinoslavica 60/2 (1999)285-6 and literature.
On the questions of the initiative and timing see Alan Cameron inA. Cameron and J. Long with L. Sherry, Barbarians and Politics at theCourt of Arcadius, Berkeley, 1993, 170-3, who argues that it was thepraetorian prefect (praefectus praetorio per orientem) Aurelian, who,with the courtiers Saturninus and John, had formed a power bloc and wasattempting to use Eudoxia to exert his influence over Arcadius. Holum,Theodosian Empresses, 67, had argued against this possibility on thegrounds that Gainas was in control of Constantinople and Aurelian and hisassociates already in exile at the time. He went on to propose that theinitiative may have come from Eudoxia herself. Cameron's carefullyrevised chronology of events, however, which places the exile ofAurelian, Saturninus and John only in April 400 (ibid., xii), undercutsHolum's arguments. Holum's alternative suggestion (69) that the courtpromoted Eudoxia in response to Gainas in an attempt to rouse publicsupport for the eastern principate at a time of crisis likewise falterson the chronology, but otherwise bears some merit.
Theodosian Empresses, 65-6.
Coll. Avell. 38.1. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 66-7.
Socr., HE 6.18; Soz., HE 8.20. Regarding the inscription at thebase of the statue see J. Gottwald, "La statue de l'imp?ratrice Eudoxie aConstantinople", ?chos d'Orient 10 (1907) 274-6. Both Socrates andSozomen describe the public festivities that accompanied the erection ofthe statues as the final straw in the strained relationship betweenEudoxia and the bishop, John Chrysostom.
For examples see W. Mayer, "Constantinopolitan Women inChrysostom's Circle", Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999) 284-5.
Socr., HE 6.8 (Eudoxia provided silver crosses and tapers; hereunuch led the chanting); Soz., HE 8.8 (no mention that Eudoxia providedthe silver crosses, but says that her eunuch was appointed to regulatethe processions, pay costs and prepare hymns). Holum, TheodosianEmpresses, 54.
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 55-8.
The events are recorded in encomiastic terms by John Chrysostom,Hom. dicta postquam reliquiae martyrum.
John Chrysostom, Sermo post reditum a priore exsilio 2, where hedwells at length on her role in swaying the emperor and at the same timeusing her private resources to keep his whereabouts secret and hisenemies at bay. At the close of the homily he styles her as "mother ofthe churches, feeder of monks, patroness of saints, staff of beggars".Cf. Soz., HE 8.18, who appears to have had access to the sermon, and whoadds that Eudoxia sent her personal eunuch Brison to fetch John and thenhoused him on his return at her own suburban estate, Marianae. If theLife of Porphyry by Mark the Deacon is accepted as a valid source, thenEudoxia's securing of an edict permitting destruction of the Marneion atGaza is an example of her exercise of ecclesiastical patronage beyond theconfines of Constantinople. She is alleged to have provided thirty-twomarble columns for the Christian church to be built on the site. SeeHolum, Theodosian Empresses, 54-6.
See Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 22-44, 53-8.

Copyright (C) 2002, Wendy Mayer. This file may be copied on the conditionthat the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice,remain intact.

?lia married Arcadius I (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 395-408) on 27 Apr 395. Arcadius (son of Flavius Theodosius I ('The Great') (Emperor Of The Roman Empire - 379-395) and ?lia Flavia Flaccilla Of Spain) was born in 377-378 in Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain; died in May 408 in Rome, Italy. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events:

• _UID: FDB493B31C464C078FF3828DC23E907C494E

Other Events:

• _UID: E082E785FEF74441B71B5B6C9BE1D18CBA67

Notes:

Pulcheria was the daughter of the Eastern Roman Emperor Arcadius and wifeof the Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian.

Other Events:

• _UID: EE853421BA2845A49D6DF2484F609FE4098B

Other Events:

• RULED: 408-450
• _UID: A85E86302ABB4F86819E959D73A292B22004

Notes:

Theodosius II (b. 10 April 401, Constantinople [now Istanbul, Turkey] -d. 28 July 450), Eastern Roman emperor from 408 to 450. He was a gentle,scholarly, easily dominated man who allowed his government to be run by asuccession of relatives and ministers.

The son of the Eastern emperor Arcadius (reigned 383-408), he was madeco-emperor in 402 and became sole ruler of the East upon his father'sdeath in 408. At first the able Anthemius, praetorian prefect of theEast, was regent for young Theodosius. Anethemius dropped out of sight in414, when the emperor's sister, Pulcheria received the title augusta andassumed the regency. Throughout his reign, control of the governmentremained out of Theodosius' hands.

At various times during his reign, Theodosius sent armies against theVandals of Africa, the Persians, and the Huns. His generals defeatedPersian (Sasanian) invaders in 422 and 447, but campaigns against theVandals, who had occupied most of Roman Africa in 429, ended in failure.Theodosius' policy of appeasing the mighty Hun leader Attila did notprevent massive Hun invasions of the Danube provinces in 441-442 and 447.His reign was also troubled by a dispute over the heretical doctrines ofNestorius, whom Theodosius appointed patriarch of Constantinople in 428.Nesorius was deposed by a church council in 431.

Theodosius' name is associated with three important projects. The first,erection of an impregnable wall around Constantinople (413), was actuallythe work of Anthemius. The emperor did, however, have a hand in foundingthe University of Constantinople in 425 and in supervising compilation ofthe Theodosian Code (published 438), which codified the laws issued after312. Theodosius died from injuries suffered during a hunting accident.His daughter Licinia Eudoxia married the Western Roman emperorValentinian III (reigned 425-455). [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995]

From Geoffrey S. Nathan, University of California- Los Angeles:

Early Life and Reign - Theodosius II was born to the eastern emperorArcadius and the empress Aelia Eudoxia in April of 401. As Eudoxia hadproduced three girls prior to this time, Theodosius' birth was receivedwith considerable excitement, both by his family and by the broaderpopulation of Constantinople. He was baptized and crowned Augustus inJanuary of the following year to enthusiastic crowds. Unlike hisfather, about whose early life we know practically nothing, Theodosius'youth is well-attested and it was spent preparing him for his futureimperial duties. From what we can tell of his education, the youngemperor was not trained to be the passive figurehead his father largelywas.

He began, as did most upper class youths, in the cursus of classicaleducation, with grammarians and later rhetoricians. He was apparentlybilingual and showed a thirst for learning. The young emperorparticularly enjoyed editing and correcting manuscripts. As he grew olderand succeeded his father as sole ruler of the east in 408, Theodosius wasinstructed in the more martial skills of horsemanship, swordplay andperhaps other military arts as well. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, whowould gain great importance after the end of Anthemius' career, oversawhis moral education: orthodoxy, philanthropy and asceticism were all partof the curriculum. Pulcheria also taught Theodosius the subtleties ofbeing emperor: how to physically comport oneself, how to control emotion,and how to deal with ministers and aides. Given his sister's piety, it isprobable that the young man was also kept isolated from women.Theodosius' education, in sum, was training for an active, involvedChristian emperor.

But like his father before him and his uncle Honorius in the west,Theodosius' youth at accession meant that he would be unable to evereffectively assert himself later in his reign. The Persian King,Isdigerdes, had briefly inserted himself into Roman affairs bythreatening war if any but Theodosius succeeded his father, a planapparently devised by Arcadius. The young Augustus was quickly accepted,but the Praetorian Prefect, Anthemius, continued to dominate politicalaffairs as he had in the last years of Arcadius' reign. In part dueto the acceptance of Isdigerdes' role as guardian, Rome and Persiaremained at peace until the Great King's death in 421.

Anthemius meanwhile continued his work at mending fences with the west.When the western generalissimo, Stilicho, was assassinated, relationsbetween the two halves of the empire improved considerably. Honorius andTheodosius shared the consulship in 409 and Constantinople even sent4,000 troops to help guard Ravenna and Honorius against theVisigoths. While this gesture proved fruitless, the east and westnow worked more closely than they had since the death of Theodosius I.

Anthemius also set about making Constantinople more defensible. In 413,he completed a circuit wall that enclosed most of the city andestablished a crucial water supply. Events since the 370s had proved thehinterlands unsafe: Illyricum, Thrace and other Balkan provinces had beenrepeatedly overrun by Germanic and Hunnic peoples. Indeed, as recently as408, the city had been threatened by a group of Huns under the leadershipof Uldin. He had been defeated, but the memory of that and other raidsspurred Anthemius' building projects.

After 414, however, Anthemius fell off the political map and we canassume that he died. It is possible, however, that Theodosius dismissedthe Prefect. If that is the case, it perhaps indicates the degree towhich new powers at court now gained influence over the emperor. Theyoung man increasingly came under the control of Pulcheria, who began toinsert herself into public life. Whatever the reason, by mid-414,the young woman had risen to dominate the still underaged emperor.

The Regency of Pulcheria - Edward Gibbon once wrote of Pulcheria: "shealone, among all the descendants of the great Theodosius (I), appears tohave inherited any share of his manly spirit and abilities." Evenbefore she took full control of her younger brother, she had shownherself a powerful force: in 412, at the age of 15, she had convincedTheodosius to dismiss the chamberlain (praepositus), Antiochus, who hadbeen overseeing the imperial household since the days of Arcadius. In thefollowing year, Pulcheria had consecrated herself to perpetual virginityand likewise exhorted her two sisters to do the same. It was a vow shewould not break, even when she married the emperor, Marcian, thirty-sevenyears later. More immediately, however, it gave her enormous moralauthority to oversee the upbringing and education of the young emperor.

No sooner had Anthemius disappeared than Pulcheria completed herascendancy by having herself made Augusta in July of 414. She may havegotten help from Aurelian, who was named Praetorian Prefect of the eastshortly thereafter. With or without his help, the young woman's bidwas successful. So that there be no question of her authority, anofficial portrait in Constantinople was dedicated in the following year,depicting Honorius, Theodosius II and Pulcheria. And by denying hercapacity for childbirth, she offered a new conception of female power inthe public sphere, based on sanctity and the cult of the imperialmystique.

Her authority manifested itself in a strongly pro-orthodoxadministration. Pulcheria, in her adolescent brother's name, passed lawsagainst Jews, pagans and heretics. For the first time, pagans wereofficially banned from holding public office and serving in themilitary. This would set an important precedent in the followingcentury for ostracizing other undesirables. Her movements against Jewsand their religion were particularly onerous: one early constitutionordered an end to the building of synagogues and the destruction ofexisting ones in places where there would be little or noresistance. It was also under Pulcheria's stewardship that themurder of the popular pagan philosopher, Hypatia, occurred in Alexandriaat the hands of Christians, encouraged, no less, by the archbishop,Cyril. Her order was brutal and barbaric, but the imperial court let itgo unpunished. To what degree this decision represented Theodosius'acceptance is difficult to establish, but clearly he did not strenuouslyobject to this pro-active policy of asserting Christianity as the properbelief of the empire.

Apart from educating Theodosius in the arts of statecraft and heavilyimbuing him with Christian morals, Pulcheria made it her business to findher younger brother an appropriate spouse. Such arrangements would havenormally been carried out by a mother or father, but since they were bothdeceased, the job fell to the eldest sibling. Traditionally, Pulcheriawas thought to have picked an appropriate wife for her younger brother.The chosen girl, Athena?s, was young, intelligent, and well-educated byher philosopher father. She herself was a poet of some repute. Althoughpoor, Athena?s converted to Christianity, took the name Aelia Eudocia,and married the young emperor in June of 421. Recent scholarshiphas suggested, however, that Eudocia was less the choice of Pulcheriathan she was the candidate of many of the disenfranchised aristocrats ofthe eastern empire. Indeed, the two women's subsequentdisagreements and Eudocia's eventual disgrace implied that there wasconsiderable competition for prestige and authority.

Pulcheria's most visible influence on state policy came during theecumenical council held at Ephesus in the summer of 431. Trying to settleonce and for all christological issues surrounding God's nature, thecouncil condemned the Nestorian controversy, which had presumed thatChrist had two separate persons -- one human, one divine -- in hisincarnation. Pulcheria engineered opposition against Nestorius (who wasthe patriarch of Constantinople at the time), not so much because of hisobjection to the Nicene creed, but because of his rejection of theincreasingly important Mother of God (Theotokos) movement. Nicaea wasupheld, Nestorius was deposed and exiled, and Nestorianism was declaredheresy. Pulcheria had used Cyril of Alexandria and other bishops to gaincontrol of the religious debate in the capital and the eastern Empire.

In other areas of government, Pulcheria's hand rested more lightly.Military affairs and administrative changes were for the most part leftto the experts. Helion, for example, was made Master of Offices (magisterofficiorum) and held the post for thirteen years. Nevertheless, evenafter the emperor's majority, the Augusta's presence was always felt: weknow little of Helion's magistracy other than he seems to have been acompetent minister. Nor did her power ebb after her brother's death: itwas Pulcheria, after all, who lent legitimacy through marriage toTheodosius' successor, Marcian.

The only real threat to her dominance over Theodosius came in the personof the emperor's wife. Aelia Eudocia had at first tried to build afaction of loyal officials around her, including her uncle Asclepiodotus,and sought to pursue more moderate religious policies. She alsoapparently bore the emperor three children, although only Licinia Eudoxiasurvived. But such power proved transitory and slowly Pulcheriacame back to the fore with her persecution of the Nestorians. Themarriage of Licinia to Valentinian III in 437 only reinforced thestruggle: Pulcheria gained by virtue of her own Theodosian blood, butEudocia also gained as mother of the bride.

In the late 430s, the two struggled directly for dominance over theemperor's favor. As with Pulcheria's rise to power, the augustae chosethe religious sphere to assert their control. The emperor's sisteroversaw the return of John Chrysostom's relics to Constantinople andlobbied for the passage of new strict anti-pagan and anti-Jewishlegislation. As a means of reasserting her own standing, Eudociawent to the Holy Land on pilgrimage with the famous ascetic, Melania theYounger, and returned in 439 with important relics and enormous prestige.With the help of the sword-bearer (spatharius), Chrysaphius, she soughtto have Pulcheria removed from court. While this plot had some limitedsuccess, the eunuch soon turned on Eudocia and engineered her fallthrough rumors of adultery. Theodosius' wife once again left the capital,this time permanently. In the late 440s, she eventually took up themonophysitic cause. Thus, Pulcheria may have won the struggle, bustshe had lost the prize: Theodosius was no longer under her influence.

Foreign Relations - Theodosius' foreign policies centered around threeaxes: relations with the Persians, the encroachment of the Hunconfederation under Rua and later Attila, and the precarious balance ofpower in the Mediterranean. In all three areas, the emperor and hisministers showed themselves to be occasionally adept, but for the mostpart unable to deal effectively with the rapid changes occurring aroundthem.

Persian relations were good for the first years of Theodosius' reign.Isdigerdes' sponsorship of the emperor at his accession and hisapparently moderate attitudes towards Christianity assured amicabilitybetween the two empires until the Great King's death in 421. Butwith his death and the accession of his son, Vararanes V, hostilitiesbroke out again. The new king allegedly began a persecution ofChristians, and some Roman citizens were harassed. The king embarked upona campaign against Rome's eastern territories, but was very quicklydefeated by several able generals, including one Germanic officer,Ardabur. Having been defeated on all fronts, the Persians and Rome signedthe One-Hundred-Year Peace, which was supposed to recognize each nation'sborders and keep them largely demilitarized. Despite severalinfractions of that peace, including one in 440-441 with the accession ofIsdigerdes II, the treaty remained largely unviolated for the rest of thefifth century. Not until 502 did a major confrontation between Rome andPersia erupt into war.

Of much greater concern were the steppe-dwellers of central Asia, theHuns. As nomadic horsemen, they rarely recognized central authority andthus had not represented a concerted threat to Rome's security. But underRua, who successfully united the smaller tribes under his rule, they wereable to directly affect the overall state of the Empire. Early inTheodosius' reign, a large contingency of Huns under Uldin had attackedThrace. Although defeated, this first major sojourn into imperialterritory presaged things to come. Despite repeated attempts to fortifythe Balkan hinterlands against incursions of foreign invaders, the courtat Constantinople found it politically expedient to deal with Hunaggression more directly; thus sometime in the mid-420s, the first annualindemnity, amounting to 350 pounds of gold, was paid to Rua.

Shortly thereafter, Rua died and was replaced by his even more ablenephew, Attila (and Attila's brother, Bleda), who immediately demandedthe doubling of the annual tribute to 700 pounds of gold and forcedTheodosius' government to sign a treaty that was highly advantageous tothe Huns. In 441, while Theodosius was engaged in campaigns against thePersians and the Vandals in the west, Attila made new demands on thegovernment. When they were refused, the king plundered and sacked citiesalong the Danube. The Roman army was defeated and in 443, an even morehumiliating treaty and tribute was forced upon the court. Now the annualtribute stood at 2,100 pounds of gold, with an additional punitivepayment of 6,000 pounds due immediately. In 448, the demands were againraised and met by the Empire. By the time of Theodosius' death, theeastern empire's resources were near exhaustion.

For fifteen years, then, Constantinople had been forced into a policy ofaccommodation. Many in the government had been responsible for acceptingthe extortion, although many more opposed any payments at all. In 449,Chrysaphius -- now chamberlain (praepositus) and in effective control ofthe eastern empire -- plotted Attila's murder. Although it failedand created even greater attempts to please the Huns, it represented thefirst serious attempt to oppose Hunnic hegemony. Since the eunuch hadprobably been one of the main architects of appeasement, his plot nodoubt signified the degree of desperation felt in the empire.

Despite these threats from the east, however, western affairs dominatedTheodosius' foreign policy. Strong ties remained between Theodosius andhis uncle, Honorius, and later his cousin, Valentinian III. When Honoriusdied in 423 and a pretender, Ioannes, tried to assume the purple inRavenna, Theodosius sent a force under Ardabur to force recognition ofhis cousin, Valentinian. Galla Placidia's regency for the six-year-oldemperor assured Theodosian legitimacy. Theodosius even recognizedposthumously Constantius III (Galla Placidia's husband) as Augustus. Thetwo emperors would eventually share four consulships together.

Nor was the east's support strictly symbolic. On two occasions,Theodosius sent large forces to aid the west against Vandal incursions.The first was an army in 431, led by Ardabur's son, Aspar, in an attemptto stop King Gaeseric's advance into the African provinces. Along withthe count of Africa, Boniface, Roman forces were badly beaten andretreated to Carthage. The defeat emboldened the Vandals to take most ofthe rest of North Africa by 439.

Gaeseric's successes led to attacks on Sicily and the Italian coast. Theylaid siege to Palermo and may have taken Lilybaeum. Theodosius onceagain sent a large naval force against the Vandals in 441, with severalinitial successes. But perhaps through Gaeseric's diplomacy, the Persianschose at this time to attack Rome's eastern borders. Attila, too, saw theopportunity for aggression. Theodosius was forced to conclude a hastytreaty in 442. The agreement recognized the Vandals' holdings as aseparate, independent kingdom in formerly Roman territory. This wassymbolically a significant event: before this time, Germanic peoples hadaccepted settlement in Roman territory as official allies (foederati) ofthe empire. The treaty made manifest to all that Rome was no longermaster of its own domain.

In all these dealings, Theodosius and his ministers did the best theycould to deal with a series of crises happening throughout Europe andwestern Asia. The eastern half of the Roman Empire was able to weatherthem, the west was not. In sum, to survive, the government inConstantinople was forced to redefine its place in the world.

Legal and Administrative Programs - It was during the reign of Theodosiusthat the first great pandect of Roman law was published, with directparticipation from the emperor himself. In the age since Diocletian, whenthe last comprehensive law code had been issued, a large number ofgeneral constitutions had been published by both eastern and westernemperors. Many were no longer salient to modern-day concerns, and manymore were unworkable or contradictory. There was an additional problem ofharmonizing the law codes of the east and the west, and creating aprocess by which each half of the empire could recognize one another'slaws.

In March of 429, Theodosius set up a commission to take all existing lawsfrom the late third century onward and arrange them in such a way as topresent a completely new and current code of jurisprudence. Theodosiusseemed less interested in getting rid of potential conflicts than he wasin providing completeness and creating a truly comprehensive law.After six years, an initial edition was completed in 435, but was notpublished. A new commission was appointed, headed by a lawyer fromAntioch, Antiochus Chuzon, to improve the language and create a system bywhich the code could be further emended and enlarged. In February of 438,the Codex Theodosianus was published and presented to the Senates in Romeand Constantinople, which both received the work with apparententhusiasm. Consistent with his desire to make the code an expandabledocument, Theodosius himself issued several supplementary laws(novellae).

The code had enormous influence, both in itself and in future legalhistory. It proved to be the basis for the emperor Justinian's much moreambitious judicial reforms in the following century. The Visigothic king,Alaric II, also incorporated large parts of Theodosius' work into the LexRomana Visigothorum in 507. The code is probably the only majoraccomplishment during Theodosius? reign that can be directly attributedto his influence.

The emperor's administrative reforms were also aggressive, although theirresults were mixed. In the 420s and 430s the emperor and his ministers,perhaps because of fiscal pressures, enacted fiscal policies thatattempted to bring more revenue into the imperial coffers. One suchpolicy was a much more forceful collection of rents on imperial landsgranted to lessees, another discontinued the extensive tax exemptionsheld on large tracts of land, and still another attempted levy wealthytaxpayers in gold coin. In the last case, the levies were in directresponse to the increasing monetary demands of the Huns. The emperor alsotried to cut down on the sale of offices, which was a ubiquitous problemat all levels of government. Subsequent legislation of the samesort in the following centuries suggests that such measures were notaltogether successful.

These fiscal policies went hand-in-hand with Theodosius' legal work.Theodosius moved towards greater administrative control by reserving theissuance of grant deeds of imperial lands to the very highest ofoffices. Such moves were part of a broader centralization ofauthority in the eastern Rome and helped create the apparatus of theByzantine state.

Final Years and Assessment - On July 28, 450, Theodosius II fell from hishorse in an accident and died shortly thereafter. On his deathbed, hepurportedly named Marcian as his successor. Whether or not this wasthe case, Marcian was crowned emperor less than a month later in thehippodrome.

The emperor's death could not have come at a more confusing time. Sincethe emperor had produced no male issue, there was no clear heir to thethrone. From his immediate family, only his sister, Pulcheria, survivedin the eastern Empire. Moreover, following the attempted assassination ofAttila, both Romans and Huns were deeply suspicious of one another. Thepast twenty years of Hun extortion had also drained the imperialtreasury. In the west, despite strong support for Valentinian, Theodosiuswas unable to keep the Vandals from consolidating their gains in theMediterranean. Gaeseric was willing and able to take up further wars whenopportunity presented.

Finally, the religious victories of orthodox Christians were temporarilythrown into disarray by Theodosius II himself. Calling a general councilat Ephesus in 449, usually called the Robber Council or Latrocinium, itfavored the christological stance of Eutyches and his supporters. Heargued the monophysitic position that Christ had only one nature and itwas divine. Matters were made worse by the deposition and subsequentdeath of Constantinople's patriarch, Flavian. The decision to support hisbeliefs caused widespread dissent in Constantinople, insulted andalienated the west in the person of Pope Leo I, and represented the firstmajor split between eastern and western Christendom.

In the end, Theodosius II had a small enough legacy given the length ofhis reign aside from his legal initiatives. His studied and visible pietywould become a model for future emperors, and his Theodosian blood keptcivil wars practically non-existent. For that, the east enjoyedconsiderable internal stability. But his reign also marked the clearshrinking of Rome's empire and its influence. Future emperors were forcedto deal with a western empire politically disintegrating and aMediterranean that was no longer mare nostrum ("our sea"). Much of thefollowing fifty years helped to create the empire of Byzantium.Theodosius II's quiescence helped in no small part.

Bibliography and Notes -
There are a large number of primary sources, both religious and secular,that deal with the reign of Theodosius II. They include theecclesiastical histories of Sozomen (ed. J. Bidez and G.C. Hanson; 1960),Evagrius(ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier; 1898), Theodoret(ed. F.Scheidweiler; 1954), and Socrates(ed. R. Hussey, 1853); the fragmentedsecular histories of Olympiodorus and Priscus (ed. C. Mueller, iv; 1870);and later historians such as Philostorgus (ed. J. Bidez; 1913),Marcellinus Comes (ed. T. Mommsen; 1894), John Malalas (ed. L. Dindorf;1831), and Theophanes (ed. C. de Boor; 1883). There are also churchchronicles detailing the religious events of his reign, particularly theChronicon Paschale (ed. L. Dindorf; 1832). The Acta of the Council ofEphesus also survive (ed. J.D. Mansi; 1759-1798). The Codex Theodosianuscontains a large number of the emperor's legal enactments as well as anexcellent description in the opening sections of the pandect's inceptionand presentation (ed. T. Mommsen and P. Krueger; 1905). The CodexJustinianus also contains a number of laws from the emperor's reign (ed.P. Krueger; 1877).

Bibliography -
Bury, J.B. (1958) History of the Later Roman Empire, 2 volumes, repr.from a 1923 ed. (New York).
Cameron, Al. (1982), "The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics atthe Court of Theodosius II," Yale Classical Studies 27, 217-89.
________.and Long, J. (1993), Barbarians and Politics at the Court ofArcadius (Berkeley).
Charlesworth, M.P. (1947), "Imperial Deportment: Two Texts and SomeQuestions," Journal of Roman Studies 37, 34-8.
Drake, H. (1979), "A Coptic Version of the Discovery of the HolySepulchre," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20, 381-92.
Giacchero, M. (1983), "Il realismo della politica orientale di TeodosioII," Accademia romanistica constantiniana. Atti del voConvergnointernazionale (Perugia), 247-54.
Gibbon, E. (1958), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 volumes(New York).
G?ldenpenning, A., (1885) Geschichte des ostr?mischen Reiches unter denKaisern Arcadius und Theodosius II (Halle; repr. 1965, Amsterdam).
Haehling, R. von (1978), Die Religionszugeh?rigkeit der hohen Amtstr?gerdes r?mischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Endeder Theodosianischen Dynastie, Antiquitas ser. 3, vol. 23 (Bonn).
Harries, J. and Wood, I. (1993), eds., The Theodosian Code: Studies inthe Imperial Law of Late Antiquity (London).
Holum, Kenneth (1982), Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley).
Lippmann, A. (1973), "Theodosius," Real-Encyclop?die der classischenAltertumwissenschaft suppl. 13 (Berlin), 961-1044.
Lubh?id, C. (1965), "Theodosius II and Heresy," Journal of EcclesiasticalHistory 16, 13-38.
Martindale, J.R. (1980), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire,vol. ii (Cambridge).
Seeck, O. (1920), Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt,? 6 vols.(Stuttgart).

Notes -
Marc. comes, 402:2; Marc. Diac., V. Porph. 33-50.
For his education, see Sozomon, ix:1; cf. Philostorgius, xii:7 andTheophanes, AM 5901. Charlesworth (1947).
Procopius, Persian Wars, i:2:1-10; Theophanes AM 5900.
Zos. v:22; cf. Soc. vii:10 and Soz. ix:9.
Soz. ix:5.
For his possible dismissal, see Seeck (1920):vi:69.
Gibbon (1958):ii:218.
Cameron and Long: 399-403.
Holum (1982):97.
CTh xvi:10:21 (415). On its significance, see von Haehling(1978):600-5.
CTh xvi:8:22 (415).
John Malalas, 14; cf. Chron. pasch. aa 420-1, Theophanes AM 5911,and Evagrius i:20.
Holum (1982):112-30.
Al. Cameron (1982).
Martindale (1980):130, 473.
NTh 3 (438).
Drake (1979).
Soc. vii:8.
See Soc. vii:18-20 for these events.
Priscus, fr. 7, 8, 12, 13.
Bury (1958):1:254-5.
Harries and Wood (1993):15-20.
CTh xxi:20:5 (424), CTh xi:20:6 (430) and Priscus, fr. 5.
CJ ix:27:6 (439).
Nov. Theo. II, v:2:1 (439) and xvii:2:3 (444).
Chron. Pasch. a.a. 450.

Copyright (C) 1999, Geoffrey S. Nathan. This file may be copied on thecondition that the entire contents, including the header and thiscopyright notice, remain intact.

Family/Spouse: Eudocia (Athenais) Of Athens. Eudocia (daughter of Leontius Of Athens) was born in 401 in Athens, Greece; died on 20 Oct 460 in Jerusalem, Palestine. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events:

• _UID: 7024FEA327C044D6AD01D8BB93BA3E5F6104

Other Events:

• _UID: 8E88BED841E14B9EABE4F4FECE9FCF88FCE4

Notes:

Licinius Eudoxia was the daughter of the powerful Eastern EmperorTheodosius II, married off to the Western Emperors Valentinian III andhis successor Petronius Maximus.

Licinia married Valentinian III (Emperor Of The Western Roman Empire - 425-455) on 29 Oct 437 in Constantinople, Turkey. Valentinian (son of Constantius III (Emperor Of The Western Roman Empire - 421) and Aelia Galla Placidia Of The Western Roman Empire (Imp?ratrice Of Rome - 421-450)) was born on 2 Jul 419 in Ravenna, Italy; died on 16 Mar 454-455 in Rome, Italy. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Licinia married Petronius Maximus (Roman Emperor Of The West) before 455. Petronius died in 455. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Licinia married Gaiseric (Genseric) (King Of The Vandals In Spain & Africa) VANDALS after 455. Gaiseric (son of Gondeguslus (Corisco) (King Of The Vandals)) was born in 400 in Baetica, Andalusia, Spain; died in 477 in Carthage, Tunisia, Africa. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events:

• _UID: 2C395B96304E40FDAD36A318AE2ECF72CC2C

Notes:

Flacidia was the daughter of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III,sister of Eudoxia, and wife of the Western Roman Emperor Olybrius.

Other Events:

• FamilySearch ID: GJNW-SJJ
• _UID: 7B0796E6F10549069B41EFDDE1DC49DECFA0

Notes:

The marriage of the Western Emperor Valentinian III's daughter to the sonof the brilliant Vandal king Gaiseric, Huneric, was a carefullythought-out political manoeuver.

Family/Spouse: Hunneric (King Of The African Vandals). Hunneric (son of Gaiseric (Genseric) (King Of The Vandals In Spain & Africa) VANDALS) was born in 440 in Carthage, Tunisia, Africa; died in 484 in Carthage, Tunisia, Africa. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]