Is this a myth?

[Sardaukar]

Thanks for the information gentlemen. Do you have any idea who the emperor mentioned by Heather would be?

In 388, that would have to be Theodosius I (unless one of his sons was already a Caesar by then and formally in charge). Which suggests that his 'Sarmatians' may well have been Goths, Gepids or Alans.

Hmm that's interesting. I didn't know Goths and Sarmatians were confused with each other. Tacitus seems to imply they were somehow very different peoples.

Well...those names might have different meanings (even totally) than during Tacitus-times too.

[Sean Manning]

I don't think it was confusion. Many ancient writers used traditional terms to refer to peoples of their time. The Greek classical scheme would call Northwestern barbariuans 'Celts', Northeastern ones 'Scythians' and Eastern ones 'Persians' or 'Medes'. The peoples of the South Russian and Hungarian steppes in 388 AFAIR would have been Goths, Alans and Huns, no longer Sarmatians, but they would have looked quite similar to the eye of a Greco-Roman observer.

And in 1099 CE Anna Comena complains about the treacherous "Keltai" who answered her father's call for military aid. A thousand years of migrations and cultural changes were less important than using the terms readers would recognize from ancient literature.

[Paullus Scipio]

...perhaps the 'Sarmatians' concerned were Alans, a Sarmatian people, c.f. the earlier 'Rox-Alani' (western Alans) who were pushed west into Europe earlier in the late 1st century AD.
It should be borne in mind that a 'migrating' people swept up all the tribes in their path, as often unwilling allies, hence a 'Goth' army would include for example, Alans and Gepids, and many others........

[Iagoba]

I just read while looking how much times the French sieged Zaragoza (Cesaraugusta for us 8) ) in 1808 (two, if you want to know) I found that even 32 years after under being under the rule of the Tolouse visigothic kingdom, in 504 the city held games.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Thanks for the information gentlemen. Do you have any idea who the emperor mentioned by Heather would be?

In 388, that would have to be Theodosius I (unless one of his sons was already a Caesar by then and formally in charge). Which suggests that his 'Sarmatians' may well have been Goths, Gepids or Alans.

Hmm that's interesting. I didn't know Goths and Sarmatians were confused with each other. Tacitus seems to imply they were somehow very different peoples.

Well...those names might have different meanings (even totally) than during Tacitus-times too.

Yes you're right. I don't know why I didn't think about that. BTW greetings to everyone in the beautiful island of Melita, where I grew up! Nice to hear from someone there.

[Hugh Fuller]

Well, the answer is a little complex......
Constantine ascended the throne in 312 AD, and sent many POW's to fight in the arena.He later issued an edict ostensibly abolishing the games completely in 326/325 AD, while he was in Beirut, possibly under pressure from the Bishops etc assembled for the Nicaean council of 327 AD.( which resolved the Arian controversy, though 'Arianism' lasted another 200 years....)
<Substantial portion deleted as not relevant to my response>

Paullus Scipio, I would hardly say that the Arian Controversy was resolved at Nicaea. As you say, it went on for another couple of hundred years. It was especially noted among the Goths who, when converted to Christianity, were converted to Arian Christianity.

[Salvianus]

This wouldn't be the massacre of the Thessalonikans in 390? Gibbon tells the story: the circus crowd had killed the local Gothic govenor & his officers for imprisoning a popular charioteer. In reprisal, the populace were invited back to the circus for a show but slaughtered by Gothic troops.

The atrocity was widely condemned and it precipitated a crucial turning point in church history: his local bishop, Ambrose, barred Theodosius from the church until he performed public penance, establishing moral authority over the emperor.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hugh wrote:-

Paullus Scipio, I would hardly say that the Arian Controversy was resolved at Nicaea. As you say, it went on for another couple of hundred years. It was especially noted among the Goths who, when converted to Christianity, were converted to Arian Christianity.

...you are quite right, Hugh.....I should have written 'ostensibly resolved', or 'officially' resolved.
My brevity was due to the fact that I was trying to answer a complex question, to which the Arian controversy was merely a scene setting aside.....but perhaps worth a thread of its own, for its far-reaching effects on Late Roman history........?

[Robert Vermaat]

The atrocity was widely condemned and it precipitated a crucial turning point in church history: his local bishop, Ambrose, barred Theodosius from the church until he performed public penance, establishing moral authority over the emperor.

Indeed - Theodosius 'the Great' proved he had no spine and gave in to the church.
Not for the first or last time, alas. When he admonished the church to abide by the law - for instance in the case where monks had driven Jews from their synagoge and damaged the building, he told them to repair it. Ambrose then got on his back and forced him to change his mind, purely on theological grounds. So where Constantine had been practical and tolerant (his opinion was that all those who had not yet seen the light, were to be pitied but left alone), Theodosius completely gave way and allowed persecutions of all non-Christians.

As to the Sarmatians, Romans of course knew peoples from each other when they put their mind to it, but for some commentators all northern barbarians were alike. Remember also that Sarmatians and Alans did operate together with Goths a lot, and may have been taken prisoner in the same campaign. Constantine trounced both groups so vigorously that they remembered it for generations, the Goths proving loyal to his house until it died out with the last usurper (Procopius)