12-29-2009, 02:06 PM
Personally, I have a mixed view of Theodosius.
Yes, Theodosius accepted whole groups of barbarians into the Empire. But he wasn’t the first. According to the creation myths Romulus literally opened an asylum and accepted anyone. Caesar put Gauls in the Senate. Claudius did likewise. Marcus Aurelius accepted barbarian groups.
These are just a few examples. And yes, there were problems. Social War, anyone? Marcus had a rebellion to deal with as well. Yet, Rome could not and would not have grown and thrived if it was a closed society like some of the Greek city-states. So I don’t damn Theodosius in bringing in barbarians. Perhaps things could have been done differently. History showed that it took time – generations, even – to turn new, sometimes forced, converts into good Romans. Maybe by this era time was a premium that simply wasn’t available.
(As a side note: Roman openness has always intrigued me. I wish I had time to do a real, proper study of it. I think it is a fascinating, and often overlooked, aspect of the Roman civilisation. But I digress.)
Yes, Theodosius also submitted to a loss of authority. But the res publica always had different spheres of power. Sometimes they competed. Early Emperors had to deal with the Senate, which still occasionally had some teeth. Others had a potential rival power source in generals. One could argue that Emperors giving gifts to the soldiers upon their accent to the purple as a nod to the power of the army. Was this a degradation of the imperial auctoritas or honestas? The Church was just one more independent sphere of power during the late Empire which emperors had to deal with.
He also did some nasty things, with the Massacre at Thessalonica given as an example. Yet Augustus’ proscriptions are rarely cited as a reason why he was not a “good emperor.” I guess what I am saying is that in many ways Roman society was a strange, alien beast to our modern eyes. Violence was distressingly common, and it was commonly used as a tool of policy.
I always liked this passage from Christian Meier’s biography of Julius Caesar. I think when I originally read this it helped me gain a bit of perspective.
I guess like Robert said, it was a sign of the times. Theodosius was a creature of his age.
Edit: and I see Duncan also said something similar while I was writing this. :wink: I was a bit slow with my response.
Yes, Theodosius accepted whole groups of barbarians into the Empire. But he wasn’t the first. According to the creation myths Romulus literally opened an asylum and accepted anyone. Caesar put Gauls in the Senate. Claudius did likewise. Marcus Aurelius accepted barbarian groups.
These are just a few examples. And yes, there were problems. Social War, anyone? Marcus had a rebellion to deal with as well. Yet, Rome could not and would not have grown and thrived if it was a closed society like some of the Greek city-states. So I don’t damn Theodosius in bringing in barbarians. Perhaps things could have been done differently. History showed that it took time – generations, even – to turn new, sometimes forced, converts into good Romans. Maybe by this era time was a premium that simply wasn’t available.
(As a side note: Roman openness has always intrigued me. I wish I had time to do a real, proper study of it. I think it is a fascinating, and often overlooked, aspect of the Roman civilisation. But I digress.)
Yes, Theodosius also submitted to a loss of authority. But the res publica always had different spheres of power. Sometimes they competed. Early Emperors had to deal with the Senate, which still occasionally had some teeth. Others had a potential rival power source in generals. One could argue that Emperors giving gifts to the soldiers upon their accent to the purple as a nod to the power of the army. Was this a degradation of the imperial auctoritas or honestas? The Church was just one more independent sphere of power during the late Empire which emperors had to deal with.
He also did some nasty things, with the Massacre at Thessalonica given as an example. Yet Augustus’ proscriptions are rarely cited as a reason why he was not a “good emperor.” I guess what I am saying is that in many ways Roman society was a strange, alien beast to our modern eyes. Violence was distressingly common, and it was commonly used as a tool of policy.
I always liked this passage from Christian Meier’s biography of Julius Caesar. I think when I originally read this it helped me gain a bit of perspective.
Quote:We must therefore consider not just the personalities, their general and particular interests and opinions, but the positions they occupy within the configuration, which is of course determined by their action and interaction, but also determines them. The overall situation dictates not only the areas of activity, but perspective and distance. In any situation men are bound to certain positions, and these are defined within the surrounding framework. One must therefore consider not just the participants, but the total situation, which is greater than the sum of its parts.
Meier, Caesar, page 6 in English translation
I guess like Robert said, it was a sign of the times. Theodosius was a creature of his age.
Edit: and I see Duncan also said something similar while I was writing this. :wink: I was a bit slow with my response.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
