This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodoric the Great article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone needs to mention his death. Interesting event...
Someone also needs to mention Theodoric Strabo... -- 64.147.190.154 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The date for Theodoric's ascension to the kingdom is in this article 488, but the article on the Ostrogoths says 476, and the article on Theodemir says it was 474. Other sites on the internet seem to suggest the latter, but none of what I can find seems completely reliable. -- Tokle 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
488 is when he invaded Italy, isn't it? john k 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
476 is the fall of the empire or Oadoacer's rise to the throne, the 474 is way off-base. 488 is provisionally accepted by many, but not all, historians. 71.212.242.187 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Under the “Assessment” heading in this article, a paragraph could be added outlining the explanation of events put forth by historian Norman Cantor regarding Theodoric’s change in policy toward Byzantium which took place shortly after Theodoric’s first decade of rule. Abandoning is former cautious appeasement of the Eastern emperor, Theodoric began to make ambitious alliances that were aimed at building a Germanic kingdom ruled by Goths and comprising Italy, Gaul, and even Spain. Cantor argues that these ambitions were Theodoric’s downfall, as they turned Byzantium against him and led the Eastern emperor to recognize Clovis’ hegemony over Gaul and form an alliance with him that significantly elevated his status. [1] -- Jjhake 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to reconcile what is going on in this statement:Subsequently, Byzantine Emperor Zeno gave him the title of Patrician and the office of Magister militum (master of the soldiers), and even appointed him as Roman Consul. Trying to achieve further aims, Theodoric frequently ravaged the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, eventually threatening Constantinople itself. In 488, Emperor Zeno ordered Theodoric to overthrow the German Foederati Odoacer, who had likewise been made patrician and even King of Italy, but had since betrayed Zeno, supporting the rebellious Leontius. How can he be an enemy yet subject to orders? Needs clarification.
Also it would be helpful for most readers to comment on his title "the Great" as his was truly one of the most enlightened kingships in Europe from the Pax to Alfred the Great in Britain. I.e. he was tolerant, financed art, architecture, and public works, at least until the end of his reign 71.212.242.187 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
References
This article says that Theodoric was of Arian faith. However, Norman Cantor says that we do not know what Arianism meant to Theodoric. He also says that although Theodoric did remain Arian, he did everything that he could to appease the Catholic church, except converting to it himself. The other things that Cantor says are that Theodoric allowed complete religious freedom, and that he recognized the authority of the pope not only over the Catholic religion, but also over the entire city of Rome (Theodoric went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized this. [1]
Spunkiel 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Not strictly true- Yes, he was Arian, but the Liber Pontificalis and the Anonymus Valesianus both say he began to persecute Catholics in the later years of his reign (525/6) possibly in retaliation for persecution of un-orthodox christians in the Eastern Roman Empire by Justin I.
Moreover, regarding authority of the Pope, this almost certainly is not the case. Popes were involved- for example the letters of Cassiodorus (Variae), ed. S Barnish, mention tax evasion by the senate- pay taxes to the 'Vicar' if they wish. But senate playing a big part in government too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
References
Norman Cantor says that Theodoric did not (and had no intention to) destroy the stability of Roman political ideas and political institutions in Italy. And, out of respect for the Roman institutions and ideas, he didn't try to break the stability of Roman civilization as a whole. I guess in other words, he was holding onto what was past, sort of like Rome did as she fell. He also says that Theodoric wanted to give a new form to the empire in the West, but under the rule of a Gothic king. [1]Is this important enough to be included? Spunkiel 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
References
yes, but if i remember correctly, didnt we say in class that he was an Arian? maybe im wrong, but check your notes from class, cause i thought we did say that. resppaz8 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It says in the article that Theodoric 'he became magister militum (or Master of Soldiers) in 483, and one year later he became consul. He afterwards returned to live among the Ostrogoths when he was 20 years old, and became their king in 488.', yet surely if he did return at age 20 it would have been in 474, if his birthdate was 454. Therefore he must have been older when he returned, otherwise he would not have been able to hold official office in Constantinople in 483 and 484. The dates just don't seem to add up.
Seems that the dates are all wrong in the second paragraph of the biography section. Firstly, the page on Theodorics father say he suceeded him in 474, when according to the article he was in Constantinople at this time. Secondly the date of his acession, 488, conflicts again with the date give in the page about his father (474). Either the dates of his time in the east are wrong, or the date when he became king, either way they don't make any sense Gibbo7111 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Gibbo 7111
The statue photograph shows plate armor which no one wore ca. 500 A.D. It seems that photograph should be moved down to the section about later legeds... AnonMoos 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just going to point out the section about Theodoric's relations with the Vandals is nonsense. I'd edit it now, but I have work, and I am lazy. Good place to check is Procopius Wars III viii. 11 onwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.27 ( talk) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Theodoric used titles "Augustus@ and "princeps Romanorum", didn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Other people used Augustus in reference to him, but he never actually used it himself. 144.32.126.12 ( talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thought it would be interesting to mention the Swedish runestone Rökstenen situated in Östergötland, since it may (or may not) mention Theodoric by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.162.87 ( talk) 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The portrait of Theodoric on this page seems to be just a cropped version of a portrait of Justinian I. I propose the portrait be changed to the one in the Italian article on Theodoric. Any objections? WebDman ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Spelling of Theoderic should always be e, closer to original. Not sure how to swap redirect so it goes to the Theoderic page, not the Theodoric one. If in doubt, look at coin images in the article - they are all THEODERIC spelling. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Though these are two separate names, obviously derived from the same source, the person in question is Theoderic. Some scholarly titles to show the fact:
Both the brick image and that of the weight in the article show that his name in Latin was Theodericus. The Greek form is similar. The problem seems to have arisen through older scholars using the form Theodoric, the name of various other figures, based on a different etymology, theo-doros, God's gift, rather than thiud-reiks, king of the people, or a mixture of the two. As the significant works cited above show, modern scholarship returns to the closest form in our alphabet to the original name.
I have
plus
Just placed a note on the issue at the talk page WikiProject Middle Ages. -- spin| control 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Wiki page on Theoderic states, "Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands." What evidence has changed the conclusion of one of Gibbon's editors, who said, " ... almost all the ancient historians of the event make Theodoric [sic] the instigator, not the perpetrator, of the deed."? Alpinehermit ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Just curious. The translation of his name is the exact same as that of "Dietrich the Great" and his story is the same as well... 12.22.31.66 ( talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Theoderic fight against Bulgarians near Singidunum? Jotaro97 ( talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, Rolf Badenhausen's website claiming that the Thidrekssaga isn't about Theoderic the Great is linked in the references here. As it is completely irrelevant to this page, I'm removing it. The proper place for discussing whether to include this fringe view on Wikipedia is the talk page for Legends about Theoderic the Great.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
As this article was moved a while ago without discussion and under dubious premises to the spelling Theoderic, I was wondering whether consensus existed to move it back to Theodoric, which I believe is the more common name.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the move. I've also move (or had moved) Legends about Theodoric the Great, Palace of Theodoric, and Mausoleum of Theodoric. I tried to change all non-quotation mentions of "Theoderic" here, in Ravenna, Ostrogothic Kingdom, the battles listed in the Campaigns box, and Legends about Theodoric the Great.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This was a rather poorly represented move of the article from the best represent form from ancient times & the most accepted modern scholarly form to an antiquated form of the name (see some of the great 20th c. scholars mentioned in the previous move). It should never have been moved back. The justifications given are paltry and the move has so little support.
There was no scholarly justification for this change.
Here are some scholarly articles that use "Theoderic" in their titles:
Challenge: find some articles written by historians in peer reviewed journals in the last twenty years that use "Theodoric".
spin| control 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I asked specifically for [1] history articles with "Theodoric" in the [2] title in the [3] last 20 years. Only one of your links worked for me, the first, and it did not have "Theodoric" in the title. I specifically asked for it in the title, so it would be easier for everyone. I cited 12 separate pieces with "Theoderic" in the title. Try a search with the name in the title under the history category and you may find there aren't very many at all. The university search I used didn't come up with any peer reviewed articles with "Theodoric" in the title, except one miscatalogued that showed "Theoderic" in the title.
Have you seen a coin with the name "Theodoric" engraved on it. I searched Google for "Theodoric coins" and all that came up were a few with the name "Theoderic" inscribed.
Both Isidore of Seville ("Theudericus") and Jordanes ("Theodericus") used the "e".
There were several people with the name Theoderic/Theodoric and this Theoderic/Theodoric is not necessarily called "the Great" in literature. How relevant is your ngram? (The link you provided had nothing about an ngram for Theodoric.)
I think it's clear that his name in Greek and Latin (via the coins and early writers) has the "e'.
spin| control 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Ikjbagl, your change has produced a nonsensical sentence:
Theodoric the Great (454 – 30 August 526), also spelled Theoderic or called Theodoric the Amal (
/θiˈɒdərɪk/;
Latin: Flāvius Theodoricus,
Greek: Θευδέριχος, Theuderikhos), was king of the
Ostrogoths (471–526), and ruler of the independent
Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy between 493–526,
[1]
regent of the
Visigoths (511–526), and a
patrician of the
Roman Empire.
Theodoric was decided not a patrician of the "Byzantine Empire", as it had only nominal control over Italy at the time and the notion that the "Byzantine Empire" existed in the late Roman period is itself a contradiction: the term Byzantine Empire only refers to the period after the end of the Late Roman Period. I'd also like to remind you that according to wp:BRD it is incumbent on you to discuss your edit in talk if it's reverted, not re-revert.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Dear users: Ikjbagl, Ermenrich, Obenritter, Kansas Bear, P Aculeius, Andrew Lancaster, Llywrch, and Johnbod:
Thank you for your discussion on this topic. The discussion seems to have fizzled out at this point, and it doesn't feel like either side has a sweepingly strong case, so a vote seems natural. At this point, the options seem to be ROMAN or BYZANTINE. Please vote below:
Clear consensus to put East Roman; I will change the article accordingly. Thank you to all who participated. Ikjbagl ( talk) 08:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The infobox and some parts of the text currently claim that Theodoric was King of the Visigoths. However other parts of the text say he was regent for his grandson Athalaric, and this is backed up by reliable sources such as Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, pp. 288-289:
Theoderic's armies secured Provence, defeating the Burgundians in 508, and by 513 had secured the Visigothic territories. Theoderic acted as regent for his grandson Athalaric. This effectively put the Visigothic kingdom under his control.
We should probably remove the claim that he was "King of the Visigoths". Athalaric was king, even if a child.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear users: Ikjbagl, Ermenrich, Obenritter, Kansas Bear, P Aculeius, Andrew Lancaster, Llywrch, and Johnbod:
I wrote the following subsection, not knowing there was a discussion page (I am not that familiar with editing policies). It is based on the work a one scholar (Jonathan J. Arnold), but stems from a multitude of sources contemporary of Theodoric and from the Italian nobility (Cassiodorus, Ennodus, Anonymus Valensis), while most of the modern image we have from Theodoric stems from "Byzantine" writers during the Gothic war.
Thus I think, while branding Theodoric as a fully fledged Western Emperor may surely be too much, the abondance of antic sources about his tenure as princeps of a western Res Publica and all the associated symbols deserve a mention, to give the reader a proper understanding of the ambiguitee of its position, at the frontier between barbarian and roman.
What are your thoughts ?
In the meantime, I will try to find additional modern sources to solidify the subsection. The works of Norman Cantor which are brought up above in this page seems to go in that direction.
The Byzantine historian and chronicler Procopius in The Gothic War, while accompanying Belisarius during his campaign in Italy, makes an unequivocal praise which probably shows the consideration which he enjoyed in the eyes of his Italian subjects :
« And though he did not claim the right to assume either the garb or the name of emperor of the Romans, but was called "rex" to the end of his life (for thus the barbarians are accustomed to call their leaders), still, in governing his own subjects, he invested himself with all the qualities which appropriately belong to one who is by birth an emperor. For he was exceedingly careful to observe justice, he preserved the laws on a sure basis, he protected the land and kept it safe from the barbarians dwelling round about, and attained the highest possible degree of wisdom and manliness. And he himself committed scarcely a single act of injustice against his subjects, nor would he brook such conduct on the part of anyone else who attempted it, except, indeed, that the Goths distributed among themselves the portion of the lands which Odoacer had given to his own partisans. And although in name Theoderic was a usurper, yet in fact he was as truly an emperor as any who have distinguished themselves in this office from the beginning; and love for him among both Goths and Italians grew to be great, and that too contrary to the ordinary habits of men. For in all states men's preferences are divergent, with the result that the government in power pleases for the moment only those with whom its acts find favour, but offends those whose judgment it violates. But Theoderic reigned for thirty-seven years, and when he died, he had not only made himself an object of terror to all his enemies, but he also left to his subjects a keen sense of bereavement at his loss. And he died in the following manner. » [1]
This testimony doesn't leave much doubt on the nature of Theodoric's reign. While having all the qualities of a Roman Emperor, he was not and reigned as an usurper. However, it must be taken cautiously. It is made by an Anatolian aristocrat of Greek culture who had been dispatched to Italy as part of Emperor Justinian's forces sent against the Goths. In order to gain a more precise idea of what were thinking the Italian populations during Theodoric's rule, one must look at more contemporary and local sources, such as Magnus Felix Ennodius's Vita beatissimi viri Epiphani episcopi Ticinensis ecclesiae, Cassiodorus's Variae and Laudes or the Pars Posterior of the Anonymus Valesianus.
According to scholar Jonathan J. Arnold, these sources shed a new light on Theodoric's rule, and lead to the conclusion that he was indeed viewed both by the local Italian nobility and the Eastern court as a Western Roman Emperor, although some adjustments were necessary for it to be accepted.
These sources state that it was customary for Thedororic's kingdom to be referred to as his Res Publica, similar in every regard to (but not included) the one in the East. The only paradigm in which a second Res Publica, accepted by Constantinople, exists is if it is indeed the western part of the Roman Empire. Theodoric, however, takes great care to avoid using other names such as Imperium or Basileía, even if by the VIth century, these were perfectly interchangeable. Likewise, Theodoric is titled, especially after 497, almost systematically as Princeps, which is the original title of emperors, before Imperator or Augustus prevailed but which he avoided. This restraint and use of anachronistic terms is quite clever on the part of Theodoric. It clearly states that he views himself as an emperor and was recognized as such both in Rome and Constantinople. But it also spares the pride of the East by asserting their seniority (but not superiority) while giving the italian nobility an emperor seemingly respectful of the old republican traditions of the principat, different from the more recent king-like emperors. Moreover, these sources fail to mention the date of 476 as being of any sort of relevance apart from Odovacer replacing Orestes as Magister Militum and failing to appoint a new emperor out of convenience. For them, the position was just vacant and waiting to be filled, as it had sometimes been for years in a recent past (2 years between Libius Severus and Anthemius), but it did not meant that the Western Empire as an institution was no more. And the arrival of Theodoric, a suitable candidate (as justified below), filled that position just fine.
This reality of imperial rule is attested by other elements :
Actually, Theodoric career itself makes it an acceptable imperial candidate for both nobilities. While born a barbarian, he had been raised in Constantinople from age 8 to 18 in the purest roman traditions. He then accomplished a full military and administrative career for the eastern part of the Empire, culminating in him being named consul for the year 484. This ultimate civic honor makes him part of the Roman senatorial nobility. Thus, he is not perceived much differently upon his arrival in Italy than from Anthemius or Julius Nepos, like him sent by Constantinople to raise the fortune of the West. But unlike them, his military and government skills and his fierce desire to get accepted by the Italian nobility enabled him to stay in power, and even being hailed as a new Trajan for regaining to Rome lost provinces in Illyricum, Gallia Narbonensis and Hispania. By 526, he was even planning a conquest of the Vandal kingdom in North African, like Majorianus and Anthemius did in their time.
This reality does not mean there was no tension between the East and the West, especially after the crowning of Justin I. But these tensions do not mean that recognition was withdrawn or never there to begin with. Indeed, during the full history of the Roman Empire, such tensions arose on a regular basis, and even reached full out war on a few occasions. The withdrawal of such a recognition actually happened after the death of both Theodoric and its grand-son and heir, Athalaric. It is the Gothic hardening which led to the execution of Amalasuintha, which had great relations with Justinian and that led to the Gothic war, that conducted the Eastern court to downgrade Theodoric Res Publica to a mere regular barbarian kingdom for propaganda purposes, Justian advocating this costly, long and difficult war as a reconquest of the roman heartland sullied by barbarians.
Thus, according to Jonathan J. Arnold, this widely accepted downgrading does not correspond to local contemporary reality, and the Western Roman Empire actually outlived its commonly accepted end date of 476 by almost 60 years. Its end came with Justinian's conquest which depopulated and impoverished Italy, destroying its institutions and legal structures.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodoric the Great article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone needs to mention his death. Interesting event...
Someone also needs to mention Theodoric Strabo... -- 64.147.190.154 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The date for Theodoric's ascension to the kingdom is in this article 488, but the article on the Ostrogoths says 476, and the article on Theodemir says it was 474. Other sites on the internet seem to suggest the latter, but none of what I can find seems completely reliable. -- Tokle 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
488 is when he invaded Italy, isn't it? john k 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
476 is the fall of the empire or Oadoacer's rise to the throne, the 474 is way off-base. 488 is provisionally accepted by many, but not all, historians. 71.212.242.187 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Under the “Assessment” heading in this article, a paragraph could be added outlining the explanation of events put forth by historian Norman Cantor regarding Theodoric’s change in policy toward Byzantium which took place shortly after Theodoric’s first decade of rule. Abandoning is former cautious appeasement of the Eastern emperor, Theodoric began to make ambitious alliances that were aimed at building a Germanic kingdom ruled by Goths and comprising Italy, Gaul, and even Spain. Cantor argues that these ambitions were Theodoric’s downfall, as they turned Byzantium against him and led the Eastern emperor to recognize Clovis’ hegemony over Gaul and form an alliance with him that significantly elevated his status. [1] -- Jjhake 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to reconcile what is going on in this statement:Subsequently, Byzantine Emperor Zeno gave him the title of Patrician and the office of Magister militum (master of the soldiers), and even appointed him as Roman Consul. Trying to achieve further aims, Theodoric frequently ravaged the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, eventually threatening Constantinople itself. In 488, Emperor Zeno ordered Theodoric to overthrow the German Foederati Odoacer, who had likewise been made patrician and even King of Italy, but had since betrayed Zeno, supporting the rebellious Leontius. How can he be an enemy yet subject to orders? Needs clarification.
Also it would be helpful for most readers to comment on his title "the Great" as his was truly one of the most enlightened kingships in Europe from the Pax to Alfred the Great in Britain. I.e. he was tolerant, financed art, architecture, and public works, at least until the end of his reign 71.212.242.187 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
References
This article says that Theodoric was of Arian faith. However, Norman Cantor says that we do not know what Arianism meant to Theodoric. He also says that although Theodoric did remain Arian, he did everything that he could to appease the Catholic church, except converting to it himself. The other things that Cantor says are that Theodoric allowed complete religious freedom, and that he recognized the authority of the pope not only over the Catholic religion, but also over the entire city of Rome (Theodoric went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized this. [1]
Spunkiel 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Not strictly true- Yes, he was Arian, but the Liber Pontificalis and the Anonymus Valesianus both say he began to persecute Catholics in the later years of his reign (525/6) possibly in retaliation for persecution of un-orthodox christians in the Eastern Roman Empire by Justin I.
Moreover, regarding authority of the Pope, this almost certainly is not the case. Popes were involved- for example the letters of Cassiodorus (Variae), ed. S Barnish, mention tax evasion by the senate- pay taxes to the 'Vicar' if they wish. But senate playing a big part in government too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
References
Norman Cantor says that Theodoric did not (and had no intention to) destroy the stability of Roman political ideas and political institutions in Italy. And, out of respect for the Roman institutions and ideas, he didn't try to break the stability of Roman civilization as a whole. I guess in other words, he was holding onto what was past, sort of like Rome did as she fell. He also says that Theodoric wanted to give a new form to the empire in the West, but under the rule of a Gothic king. [1]Is this important enough to be included? Spunkiel 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
References
yes, but if i remember correctly, didnt we say in class that he was an Arian? maybe im wrong, but check your notes from class, cause i thought we did say that. resppaz8 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It says in the article that Theodoric 'he became magister militum (or Master of Soldiers) in 483, and one year later he became consul. He afterwards returned to live among the Ostrogoths when he was 20 years old, and became their king in 488.', yet surely if he did return at age 20 it would have been in 474, if his birthdate was 454. Therefore he must have been older when he returned, otherwise he would not have been able to hold official office in Constantinople in 483 and 484. The dates just don't seem to add up.
Seems that the dates are all wrong in the second paragraph of the biography section. Firstly, the page on Theodorics father say he suceeded him in 474, when according to the article he was in Constantinople at this time. Secondly the date of his acession, 488, conflicts again with the date give in the page about his father (474). Either the dates of his time in the east are wrong, or the date when he became king, either way they don't make any sense Gibbo7111 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Gibbo 7111
The statue photograph shows plate armor which no one wore ca. 500 A.D. It seems that photograph should be moved down to the section about later legeds... AnonMoos 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just going to point out the section about Theodoric's relations with the Vandals is nonsense. I'd edit it now, but I have work, and I am lazy. Good place to check is Procopius Wars III viii. 11 onwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.27 ( talk) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Theodoric used titles "Augustus@ and "princeps Romanorum", didn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Other people used Augustus in reference to him, but he never actually used it himself. 144.32.126.12 ( talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thought it would be interesting to mention the Swedish runestone Rökstenen situated in Östergötland, since it may (or may not) mention Theodoric by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.162.87 ( talk) 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The portrait of Theodoric on this page seems to be just a cropped version of a portrait of Justinian I. I propose the portrait be changed to the one in the Italian article on Theodoric. Any objections? WebDman ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Spelling of Theoderic should always be e, closer to original. Not sure how to swap redirect so it goes to the Theoderic page, not the Theodoric one. If in doubt, look at coin images in the article - they are all THEODERIC spelling. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Though these are two separate names, obviously derived from the same source, the person in question is Theoderic. Some scholarly titles to show the fact:
Both the brick image and that of the weight in the article show that his name in Latin was Theodericus. The Greek form is similar. The problem seems to have arisen through older scholars using the form Theodoric, the name of various other figures, based on a different etymology, theo-doros, God's gift, rather than thiud-reiks, king of the people, or a mixture of the two. As the significant works cited above show, modern scholarship returns to the closest form in our alphabet to the original name.
I have
plus
Just placed a note on the issue at the talk page WikiProject Middle Ages. -- spin| control 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Wiki page on Theoderic states, "Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands." What evidence has changed the conclusion of one of Gibbon's editors, who said, " ... almost all the ancient historians of the event make Theodoric [sic] the instigator, not the perpetrator, of the deed."? Alpinehermit ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Just curious. The translation of his name is the exact same as that of "Dietrich the Great" and his story is the same as well... 12.22.31.66 ( talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Theoderic fight against Bulgarians near Singidunum? Jotaro97 ( talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, Rolf Badenhausen's website claiming that the Thidrekssaga isn't about Theoderic the Great is linked in the references here. As it is completely irrelevant to this page, I'm removing it. The proper place for discussing whether to include this fringe view on Wikipedia is the talk page for Legends about Theoderic the Great.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
As this article was moved a while ago without discussion and under dubious premises to the spelling Theoderic, I was wondering whether consensus existed to move it back to Theodoric, which I believe is the more common name.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the move. I've also move (or had moved) Legends about Theodoric the Great, Palace of Theodoric, and Mausoleum of Theodoric. I tried to change all non-quotation mentions of "Theoderic" here, in Ravenna, Ostrogothic Kingdom, the battles listed in the Campaigns box, and Legends about Theodoric the Great.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This was a rather poorly represented move of the article from the best represent form from ancient times & the most accepted modern scholarly form to an antiquated form of the name (see some of the great 20th c. scholars mentioned in the previous move). It should never have been moved back. The justifications given are paltry and the move has so little support.
There was no scholarly justification for this change.
Here are some scholarly articles that use "Theoderic" in their titles:
Challenge: find some articles written by historians in peer reviewed journals in the last twenty years that use "Theodoric".
spin| control 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I asked specifically for [1] history articles with "Theodoric" in the [2] title in the [3] last 20 years. Only one of your links worked for me, the first, and it did not have "Theodoric" in the title. I specifically asked for it in the title, so it would be easier for everyone. I cited 12 separate pieces with "Theoderic" in the title. Try a search with the name in the title under the history category and you may find there aren't very many at all. The university search I used didn't come up with any peer reviewed articles with "Theodoric" in the title, except one miscatalogued that showed "Theoderic" in the title.
Have you seen a coin with the name "Theodoric" engraved on it. I searched Google for "Theodoric coins" and all that came up were a few with the name "Theoderic" inscribed.
Both Isidore of Seville ("Theudericus") and Jordanes ("Theodericus") used the "e".
There were several people with the name Theoderic/Theodoric and this Theoderic/Theodoric is not necessarily called "the Great" in literature. How relevant is your ngram? (The link you provided had nothing about an ngram for Theodoric.)
I think it's clear that his name in Greek and Latin (via the coins and early writers) has the "e'.
spin| control 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Ikjbagl, your change has produced a nonsensical sentence:
Theodoric the Great (454 – 30 August 526), also spelled Theoderic or called Theodoric the Amal (
/θiˈɒdərɪk/;
Latin: Flāvius Theodoricus,
Greek: Θευδέριχος, Theuderikhos), was king of the
Ostrogoths (471–526), and ruler of the independent
Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy between 493–526,
[1]
regent of the
Visigoths (511–526), and a
patrician of the
Roman Empire.
Theodoric was decided not a patrician of the "Byzantine Empire", as it had only nominal control over Italy at the time and the notion that the "Byzantine Empire" existed in the late Roman period is itself a contradiction: the term Byzantine Empire only refers to the period after the end of the Late Roman Period. I'd also like to remind you that according to wp:BRD it is incumbent on you to discuss your edit in talk if it's reverted, not re-revert.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Dear users: Ikjbagl, Ermenrich, Obenritter, Kansas Bear, P Aculeius, Andrew Lancaster, Llywrch, and Johnbod:
Thank you for your discussion on this topic. The discussion seems to have fizzled out at this point, and it doesn't feel like either side has a sweepingly strong case, so a vote seems natural. At this point, the options seem to be ROMAN or BYZANTINE. Please vote below:
Clear consensus to put East Roman; I will change the article accordingly. Thank you to all who participated. Ikjbagl ( talk) 08:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The infobox and some parts of the text currently claim that Theodoric was King of the Visigoths. However other parts of the text say he was regent for his grandson Athalaric, and this is backed up by reliable sources such as Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, pp. 288-289:
Theoderic's armies secured Provence, defeating the Burgundians in 508, and by 513 had secured the Visigothic territories. Theoderic acted as regent for his grandson Athalaric. This effectively put the Visigothic kingdom under his control.
We should probably remove the claim that he was "King of the Visigoths". Athalaric was king, even if a child.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear users: Ikjbagl, Ermenrich, Obenritter, Kansas Bear, P Aculeius, Andrew Lancaster, Llywrch, and Johnbod:
I wrote the following subsection, not knowing there was a discussion page (I am not that familiar with editing policies). It is based on the work a one scholar (Jonathan J. Arnold), but stems from a multitude of sources contemporary of Theodoric and from the Italian nobility (Cassiodorus, Ennodus, Anonymus Valensis), while most of the modern image we have from Theodoric stems from "Byzantine" writers during the Gothic war.
Thus I think, while branding Theodoric as a fully fledged Western Emperor may surely be too much, the abondance of antic sources about his tenure as princeps of a western Res Publica and all the associated symbols deserve a mention, to give the reader a proper understanding of the ambiguitee of its position, at the frontier between barbarian and roman.
What are your thoughts ?
In the meantime, I will try to find additional modern sources to solidify the subsection. The works of Norman Cantor which are brought up above in this page seems to go in that direction.
The Byzantine historian and chronicler Procopius in The Gothic War, while accompanying Belisarius during his campaign in Italy, makes an unequivocal praise which probably shows the consideration which he enjoyed in the eyes of his Italian subjects :
« And though he did not claim the right to assume either the garb or the name of emperor of the Romans, but was called "rex" to the end of his life (for thus the barbarians are accustomed to call their leaders), still, in governing his own subjects, he invested himself with all the qualities which appropriately belong to one who is by birth an emperor. For he was exceedingly careful to observe justice, he preserved the laws on a sure basis, he protected the land and kept it safe from the barbarians dwelling round about, and attained the highest possible degree of wisdom and manliness. And he himself committed scarcely a single act of injustice against his subjects, nor would he brook such conduct on the part of anyone else who attempted it, except, indeed, that the Goths distributed among themselves the portion of the lands which Odoacer had given to his own partisans. And although in name Theoderic was a usurper, yet in fact he was as truly an emperor as any who have distinguished themselves in this office from the beginning; and love for him among both Goths and Italians grew to be great, and that too contrary to the ordinary habits of men. For in all states men's preferences are divergent, with the result that the government in power pleases for the moment only those with whom its acts find favour, but offends those whose judgment it violates. But Theoderic reigned for thirty-seven years, and when he died, he had not only made himself an object of terror to all his enemies, but he also left to his subjects a keen sense of bereavement at his loss. And he died in the following manner. » [1]
This testimony doesn't leave much doubt on the nature of Theodoric's reign. While having all the qualities of a Roman Emperor, he was not and reigned as an usurper. However, it must be taken cautiously. It is made by an Anatolian aristocrat of Greek culture who had been dispatched to Italy as part of Emperor Justinian's forces sent against the Goths. In order to gain a more precise idea of what were thinking the Italian populations during Theodoric's rule, one must look at more contemporary and local sources, such as Magnus Felix Ennodius's Vita beatissimi viri Epiphani episcopi Ticinensis ecclesiae, Cassiodorus's Variae and Laudes or the Pars Posterior of the Anonymus Valesianus.
According to scholar Jonathan J. Arnold, these sources shed a new light on Theodoric's rule, and lead to the conclusion that he was indeed viewed both by the local Italian nobility and the Eastern court as a Western Roman Emperor, although some adjustments were necessary for it to be accepted.
These sources state that it was customary for Thedororic's kingdom to be referred to as his Res Publica, similar in every regard to (but not included) the one in the East. The only paradigm in which a second Res Publica, accepted by Constantinople, exists is if it is indeed the western part of the Roman Empire. Theodoric, however, takes great care to avoid using other names such as Imperium or Basileía, even if by the VIth century, these were perfectly interchangeable. Likewise, Theodoric is titled, especially after 497, almost systematically as Princeps, which is the original title of emperors, before Imperator or Augustus prevailed but which he avoided. This restraint and use of anachronistic terms is quite clever on the part of Theodoric. It clearly states that he views himself as an emperor and was recognized as such both in Rome and Constantinople. But it also spares the pride of the East by asserting their seniority (but not superiority) while giving the italian nobility an emperor seemingly respectful of the old republican traditions of the principat, different from the more recent king-like emperors. Moreover, these sources fail to mention the date of 476 as being of any sort of relevance apart from Odovacer replacing Orestes as Magister Militum and failing to appoint a new emperor out of convenience. For them, the position was just vacant and waiting to be filled, as it had sometimes been for years in a recent past (2 years between Libius Severus and Anthemius), but it did not meant that the Western Empire as an institution was no more. And the arrival of Theodoric, a suitable candidate (as justified below), filled that position just fine.
This reality of imperial rule is attested by other elements :
Actually, Theodoric career itself makes it an acceptable imperial candidate for both nobilities. While born a barbarian, he had been raised in Constantinople from age 8 to 18 in the purest roman traditions. He then accomplished a full military and administrative career for the eastern part of the Empire, culminating in him being named consul for the year 484. This ultimate civic honor makes him part of the Roman senatorial nobility. Thus, he is not perceived much differently upon his arrival in Italy than from Anthemius or Julius Nepos, like him sent by Constantinople to raise the fortune of the West. But unlike them, his military and government skills and his fierce desire to get accepted by the Italian nobility enabled him to stay in power, and even being hailed as a new Trajan for regaining to Rome lost provinces in Illyricum, Gallia Narbonensis and Hispania. By 526, he was even planning a conquest of the Vandal kingdom in North African, like Majorianus and Anthemius did in their time.
This reality does not mean there was no tension between the East and the West, especially after the crowning of Justin I. But these tensions do not mean that recognition was withdrawn or never there to begin with. Indeed, during the full history of the Roman Empire, such tensions arose on a regular basis, and even reached full out war on a few occasions. The withdrawal of such a recognition actually happened after the death of both Theodoric and its grand-son and heir, Athalaric. It is the Gothic hardening which led to the execution of Amalasuintha, which had great relations with Justinian and that led to the Gothic war, that conducted the Eastern court to downgrade Theodoric Res Publica to a mere regular barbarian kingdom for propaganda purposes, Justian advocating this costly, long and difficult war as a reconquest of the roman heartland sullied by barbarians.
Thus, according to Jonathan J. Arnold, this widely accepted downgrading does not correspond to local contemporary reality, and the Western Roman Empire actually outlived its commonly accepted end date of 476 by almost 60 years. Its end came with Justinian's conquest which depopulated and impoverished Italy, destroying its institutions and legal structures.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)