This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodosius I 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Theodosius I has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 6, 2005, September 6, 2006, September 6, 2007, September 6, 2008, September 6, 2009, September 6, 2010, January 23, 2011, January 23, 2014, and September 6, 2023. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
"Theodosius promoted Nicene Trinitarian Christianity within the Empire. On 27 February 380, he declared "Catholic Church" the only legitimate Imperial religion, ending official state support for the traditional religion.[12]"
This could be misleading as it leads one to erroneously suppose the present Roman Catholic Church is meant. The term 'Catholic Church' at that time consisted of what we now know to be the Orthodox East and Catholic West prior to the schism. It would be in the interests of clarity to change this to "he declared that Christianity the only legitimate Imperial religion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 ( talk) 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello -- my edits about Arians and Homoians were removed by a user who did not log in. I'd like to hear justification for these edits. Most scholars of late antiquity would not use "Arian" to discuss most of the contenders for ecclesiastical power in the late 4th century AD. Their Nicene opponents (like Ambrose of Milan and Gregory of Nyssa) would have called them Arians, and those opponents ended up prevailing and defining Orthodoxy; however, these ecclesiastics would not have called themselves this, and, more importantly, were a different group than the self-declared followers of Arius from the early 4th century. Check out Daniel Williams "Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts" for more details. Unless the nameless editor would like to discuss the reasons behind these changes, I'd like to revert back. The resulting article doesn't even make grammatical sense, for one thing. -- Jfruh 19:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arius and his followers agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (Greek: homo-ousios). Instead, they viewed God and the Son as having distinct but similar substances (Greek: homoi-ousios). The difference in Greek was literally one iota (reflected in the English letter I) of difference. The apparently trivial nature of this difference led Edward Gibbon to remark that "the profane of every age have derided the furious contests which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoiousians".
Let me just add that the quoted passage from the article on Arianism certainly is completely inaccurate. Arius and his immediate followers did not use the term homoiousios, which was coined by later theologians after the Council of Nicaea in an attempt to find a formulation on which everyone could agree. Gibbon's famous dismissal of the entire debate is as misleading as it is flippant, since (a) there was far more to it than simply the rival terms homoousios and homoiousios, and (b) these two terms may have differed by only an iota but meant completely different things. Arius might have approved of "homoiousios" if it had been put to him, but we'll never know; the most extreme Arians, fifty years later, were branded "Anoians", meaning that they didn't even think the Son was like the Father. Finally, the use of the term "Son of God" in the quoted passage is completely misleading, since this term was originally a moral one, not a metaphysical one. To say that someone thinks that Jesus was the Son of God is in itself almost completely meaningless. 84.69.173.175 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"[Alaric].. participated in Theodosius' campaign against Eugenius in 394, only to resume his rebellious behavior against Theodosius' son and eastern successor, Arcadius, shortly after Theodosius' death."
Shouldnt it be his Western Successor, Honorius? Alaric mobilized his forces against the Eastern Empire at Honorius' behest shortly before Arcadius' death, but most his "rebellious behavior" was directed against Honorius... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.171 ( talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The disinfobox was added to this article 10:24, 8 November 2006. It bore the wrong date until someone noticed today. That's over thirteen months. -- Wetman ( talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose to include references to the Theodosian Line as it is known in historical works. I was wondering what others think of this?-- Prinkipas ( talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article says when he passed a law against homosexuality this was the first time in the history of law that this had happenned - what about the Old Testament laws which called it an abomination punishable by death? Orlando098 ( talk) 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This emperor was responable for some of the most brutal demolitions of the classical world. Forget his forced massacres like that of the thessalonikans for example.
The list goes on.. This man destroyed so much important art and eradicated from history so much cultural heritage whether it be histories and sciences judged 'unholy' or his crusade of leveling every major classical santuary, statue and temple compex he could. The art patronage section has as much validity as Hitler giving Gandi a speach on ethics. At least build a section on his destruction of art, culture and the sciences. Forget his attacks on paganism, his brutality to the arts far outweighs his 'patronage.' He is one of the major christian figures who virtually single handedly landed europe in the dark ages and that is why his art patronage section is insulting to any encyclopedia. Iam amazed it is allowed to stand. His inhumanity to the arts and what was lost due to his actions completely eclipses any positive contribution to the arts. Reaper7 ( talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Council of Nicaea affirmed the prevailing view among Christians that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father. This concept was not merely asserted or proposed or introduced at the Council. It is widely recognized that Nicaea did not invent the dogma of the deity of Jesus. I have corrected this article, which had stated that the council had "asserted."
Greetings, I changed the redirect of "Catholic Church" under "Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion" to redirect as Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. The reason I did this was to make it NPOV towards the different churches claiming to be "Catholic", instead of it just assuming he meant the modern Roman Catholic Church. As his pronouncement was of the "Catholic Church" before the Great Schism, it would not be NPOV to redirect it to any certain church as at that time Christiandom did not exist as it does now. I would prefer to redirect it to a page dedicated solely to the pre-schism church, but I cannot find one so for now I think it best to stick with a disambiguation.
If you feel this edit is unfounded, please talk about it here!
I am very sorry that I am not logged in right now, my account is Gunnar123abc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question about the wording. In the heading, it say:
15 May 392 – 17 January 395 (whole empire)
However, if you read the "Battle of Frigidus" article, it says that after the battle (in 394), Theodosius took control of the entire empire. How was he the emperor of the whole empire in 392 if the battle of Frigidus didn't happen till 394? I hope you can understand my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.54.203 ( talk) 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we switch to this file in the infox? I saw that nearly all articles about pre-5th century Roman Empire use the pic of the bust heads instead. Sesroh Fo Maerd I ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge Can you explain why you think the designation of "late antiquity" is unnecessary? Is it for this reason that you removed mention of Peter Brown? What reason is there to extirpate the link from the lead? GPinkerton ( talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Here I reduced the phrase "was Roman emperor from 379 to 395, during Late Antiquity" to "was Roman emperor from 379 to 395". It's a tiny point and I was planning to leave it until Soidling's previous edit reminded me that at least one other editor agrees with me. In the lede, adding a later periodization strikes me as unhelpful to the casual reader; the dates of Theodosius's reign, I suggest, are sufficient. Adding the article to a Late Antiquity category, on the other hand, would be fine, and discussion later in the article on how Theodosius's reign is a major part of the definition of "Late Antiquity" could also be useful.
And here, I removed a specific in-text attribution to the eminent Peter Brown, leaving his comment and his reference. Here we are treating Professor Brown's comment as sufficiently authoritative to be made in Wikipedia's voice; we are not presenting it as one side in a controversy, for which in-text attribution might be desirable. This is an article about Theodosius, not about even his most eminent modern analysts.
Both of these points are minor, and if you can muster even a small consensus to revert, feel free. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
At this edit his sons have been removed from the list of co-rulers. Their (nominal) tenure is agreed to have overlapped with that of Theodosius - ergo, they were in fact his co-rulers. I have trouble imagining any good reason for not including them. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
At this edit I have reinstated a comment about his management of his court and indeed the entire Empire. No, there's no suggestion that he personally sold offices, but the comment is highly relevant to his style of governance and to his place in history, and hence to an article about the last undisputed ruler of the united Empire. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flavius Theodosius (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Most of the depiction of this event in this article is in error. Please revise. See main article: Massacre of Thessalonica Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest scholarship has the end of the games under Theodosius II not I: "Classicist Ingomar Hamlet says that, contrary to popular myth, Theodosius did not ban the Olympic games. [1] Sofie Remijsen indicates there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius and came to an end under Theodosius II instead. Two scholia on Lucian connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the Olympian Zeus during his reign. [2]: 49 " found in Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Page information lists all of you as contributors to this article. Tags are now gone, and I think this article deserves to be a Good Article instead of a c-class. Is there anyone who agrees? If so, please give it a peer review as a first step in that direction. Please verify it is well-written, verifiable with no OR and no copy-vios, that it addresses all the main aspects of the topic but stays focused, is neutral and appropriately illustrated. Any input would be welcome. Thank you all for creating this wonderful article and for allowing me to contribute! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I had some difficulty in verifying this ubiquitous claim that Theodosius disbanded the Vestals and extinguished their sacred fire. The two sources provided here are the online Encyclopedia Britannica and Handbook to Life in the Medieval World, neither of which is specialized on the topic and thus should be treated with caution. In the sources that do go at length into the emperor's policies, I found no mention of this at all.
All that is available on primary sources is seemingly a claim by Zosimus ( book 5) that, when Theodosius visited Rome after the Frigidus in 394, his Christian niece acted disrespectfully towards the last of the Vestals. Cameron, pp. 46–47, disbelieves the tale since Theodosius didn't visit Rome in 394. In the absence of further evidence I suggest that this excerpt be removed. Avilich ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
formerly it was thought that Theodosius did X, but now this is thought to be Y", and the Vestals aren't really the most important of these scholarly revisions. Avilich ( talk) 19:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
He also ended official state support for the traditional polytheist religions and customs. I believe that's incorrect. It was Gratian that did that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
it was formerly thought this but that is no longer the casein the article, and the issue of the Vestals is usually only mentioned in passing among the other things. Avilich ( talk) 22:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Well
Avilich you just rained all over my little parade didn't you?
Ah well, such is life on wiki! (It was a good idea though.)
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 22:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Smallchief ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a thorough and good article -- but, of course, I have a few suggestions and nitpicks. It wouldn't be a review if I didn't. So, here are my comments:
Summary section. In my opinion, this opening section has to be clearly written, thus more comments on it than on the remaining sections.
Para 1
Para 2
Background and career section, para one sentence two.
Accession section
First Civil War sub-section
Massacre sub-section
Third civil war sub-section
Aftermath subsection
Dead link
Religious policy section
Smallchief ( talk) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I see one minor problem. The last para of the summary says Theodosius fought three civil wars, but the present text only describes two. Changing the summary to say "two civil wars" seems like the easy solution if that doesn't conflict with the references. And way down the page in the second civil war section is the word "senator's." I don't think the apostrophe is correct.
With that first correction (if my reading of it is correct), I'll declare the article "good." However, I generally find wikipedia instructions incomprehensible -- and right now I am attempting to decipher the instructions for declaring an article good. (I'd probably function better in Theo's Rome than in the 21st century.) So, I'll try to fill out the template, etc., but I may need technical assistance.
Congrats! This was a monumental effort on your part. Smallchief ( talk) 08:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. (I think.) It's a hell of a good article. Smallchief ( talk) 17:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP Since I completely agree with your suggestion that the disagreement should be taken here, I am doing that. I note that in spite of that advice, you did not attempt to do so yourself. It would have evidenced your good faith effort if you had at least tried. I hope it evidences my good faith to you because I'm afraid I do agree that Avilich was correct in removing your changes. Let's review what you wrote:
One of the most important moments of his reign, and even in the history of the Roman Empire in general, was when he issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, [1]I have a problem with this claim. I do not agree on either point and I do not think your sources qualify as the best sources. I actually read Christianity Today and for an evangelical magazine it is entertaining and interesting, but I would never reference it as a source of balanced scholarship. See, I don't think that, no matter how long you looked, you would find either of those claims supported in the best sources. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but in the meantime, it is my opinion this should be removed as unsound and badly sourced.
It marks the end of the fourth-century religious controversy on the Trinity, occasioned by the Arian heresy and calling forth definitions of orthodox dogma by the Council of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). Acknowledgment of the true doctrine of the Trinity is made the test of State recognition.In fact the Arian controversy and other challenges to Orthodoxy continued for some time in a formal capacity and into the modern day in an informal one.
The citation of the Roman See as the yardstick of correct belief is significant; bracketing of the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria with that of the Pope was due to ti the Egyptian See's stalwart defence of the Trinitarian position, particularly under St. Athanasius. The last sentence of the Edict indicates that the Emperors contemplate the use of physical force in the service of orthodoxy; this is the first recorded instance of such a departure. - The Church and the State Through the Centuries Ed. Ehler, Sidney Z. and Morrall, John B.as the Roman Empire's State Religion. [2] [3] [4] [5] }}
That's my two cents.
References
In the most common sense, "mainstream" refers to Nicene Christianity, or rather the traditions which continue to claim adherence to the Nicene Creed.
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP Re-ping, I don't think the above one worked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not a matter of disagreement only, it is simply that he cannot delete information with 6 sources unilaterally and systematically without even creating a thread in Talk. He has numerous warnings for Edit War (Expulsions included), among others.
On the subject at hand, it is as simple as reading the Reign section. Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, which is a very remarkable fact in itself.
Currently the Lead totally blurs that. Reading the Lead I would never think that the Roman Empire officially became Christian for the first time under his reign.
Change the sources you want if you do not see them appropriate, but that fact must be maintained, it cannot be erased or blurred. BaylanSP ( talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is my proposal: I change all the controversial sources, I add new more reliable and conventional sources for Wikipedia, and without eliminating anything from the Lead, I add the simplified information extracted from the body of the article (Specifically from the beginning of the "Reign" section)
"[...] and was key in establishing the creed of Nicaea as the universal orthodoxy for Christianity making with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 the Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. [1] [2] [3]" BaylanSP ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not just "my personal opinion". I provide another source where it says it literally, this is easier:
"In 380 the three, reigning Roman Emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica that declared Nicene Christianity the state religion which all subjects were required to follow" [4]
If necessary I can present more sources in the same line. BaylanSP ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Here another source, it is also specified, literally, what I express above.
"380 - Edict of Thessalonica is issued, declaring Nicene Christianity as the official state religion" [5]
There are many sources along the same lines, claiming that either de facto, de iure, or both, Theodosius I's Edict of Thessalonica established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the imperial Roman state.
BaylanSP ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Another source, again, using literally the same words and in line with the previous ones:
"In February 380,Theodosius promulgated the Edict of Thessalonica ordering all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess Nicene Christianity, thus making it the official state religion" [6]
BaylanSP ( talk) 16:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Another source, about religion during the Roman Empire, also quite recent, is expressed along the same lines: "On February 27, 380 the Edict of Thessalonica issued by Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius declared Nicene Trinitarian Christianity to be the only legitimate religion of the Empire [...]" [7] BaylanSP ( talk) 16:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Following the same line of the previous ones, de facto or de jure, Nicene Christianity became the official religion of the Empire with Theodosius:
"Pagan culture and religious practice remained important through the fourth century AD, but in AD 392 the emperor Theodosius I forbade pagan worship, and Christianity effectively became the official religion of the Roman state."
Christianity in the Roman Empire - Dr. Nigel Pollard. [8]
Taking into account the enormous number of sources (of all dates) that claim that Theodosius with the Edict of Thessalonica established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, I think we should make a mention of it. I maintain my proposal of the beginning, it is quite solid with the historiography presented, and that in general.
Regards.
BaylanSP ( talk) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Also, this article is about Theodosius I, not the historiography of the Edict of Thessalonica. No doubt some historiography needs to be included somewhere – but probably not here, and certainly not the way you're doing. Avilich ( talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am confused why there is such an issue with source(s). One of the most used sources in this article, Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, page 35, states:
Thank you for your message, I quite agree with the "intention" of your message. However, I would like to know if I can edit this article and add the Edict of Thessaloniki and its sources.
I think it's fair that if the sources are clear and literal, users (Veterans or not) must be allowed to edit the articles.
Thanks. BaylanSP ( talk) 20:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that Avilich was correct in removing your changesand concerning the third part of the claim:
This latter part is quite interesting, and the source is acceptable, but it is completely off topic. This is an article about Theodosius. This is not an article about the Edict. If you want to write on all the many ramifications and impacts and effects of the Edict, it belongs there at Edict of Thessalonica not here. This is a side-trip down a rabbit hole.
I agree with a mention of the Edict in the lead being added. It was primarily the sources, that you have now dealt with, and evaluation of that act as "One of the most important moments of his reign, and even in the history of the Roman Empire in general" that I had trouble with. If you are willing to compromise by adding the Edict to the lead, and leaving the opinion out, then we have consensus between us on this. Add at will.That refers only to the first issue and says nothing about the third part being off topic.
What you just wrote here about the Edict is the exact opposite of what you have written on the Talk Page, that is, you have just completely changed your position right now on the subject, literally.then true?
Arnab Paulus Unless you can source this statement "Theodosius had major hand in the persecution on Pagans and other minorities in the Roman Empire which in part was because of the orthodox Christian doctrine and and the religious Christian fanatics and the Christian praised the persecution of the Pagans including the burning and destruction of several ancient temples, he never prevented or punished the damaging of several Hellenistic temples of classical antiquity, such as the
Serapeum of Alexandria, by Christian zealots."
to someone current (and not MacMullen since he is a minority view), I am going to revert it. It is incorrect.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
When and why was Theodosius given this honorific? It would be a good tidbit to add to the article. RMcPhillip ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It's in the notes at the end of the introduction I believe. Page 12 maybe? I can't see page numbers on the version I am accessing.
@ Dumuzid and @ Avilich, please tell me what issue you have with the new lead image. Crusader1096 ( message) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodosius I 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Theodosius I has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 6, 2005, September 6, 2006, September 6, 2007, September 6, 2008, September 6, 2009, September 6, 2010, January 23, 2011, January 23, 2014, and September 6, 2023. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
"Theodosius promoted Nicene Trinitarian Christianity within the Empire. On 27 February 380, he declared "Catholic Church" the only legitimate Imperial religion, ending official state support for the traditional religion.[12]"
This could be misleading as it leads one to erroneously suppose the present Roman Catholic Church is meant. The term 'Catholic Church' at that time consisted of what we now know to be the Orthodox East and Catholic West prior to the schism. It would be in the interests of clarity to change this to "he declared that Christianity the only legitimate Imperial religion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 ( talk) 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello -- my edits about Arians and Homoians were removed by a user who did not log in. I'd like to hear justification for these edits. Most scholars of late antiquity would not use "Arian" to discuss most of the contenders for ecclesiastical power in the late 4th century AD. Their Nicene opponents (like Ambrose of Milan and Gregory of Nyssa) would have called them Arians, and those opponents ended up prevailing and defining Orthodoxy; however, these ecclesiastics would not have called themselves this, and, more importantly, were a different group than the self-declared followers of Arius from the early 4th century. Check out Daniel Williams "Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts" for more details. Unless the nameless editor would like to discuss the reasons behind these changes, I'd like to revert back. The resulting article doesn't even make grammatical sense, for one thing. -- Jfruh 19:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arius and his followers agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (Greek: homo-ousios). Instead, they viewed God and the Son as having distinct but similar substances (Greek: homoi-ousios). The difference in Greek was literally one iota (reflected in the English letter I) of difference. The apparently trivial nature of this difference led Edward Gibbon to remark that "the profane of every age have derided the furious contests which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoiousians".
Let me just add that the quoted passage from the article on Arianism certainly is completely inaccurate. Arius and his immediate followers did not use the term homoiousios, which was coined by later theologians after the Council of Nicaea in an attempt to find a formulation on which everyone could agree. Gibbon's famous dismissal of the entire debate is as misleading as it is flippant, since (a) there was far more to it than simply the rival terms homoousios and homoiousios, and (b) these two terms may have differed by only an iota but meant completely different things. Arius might have approved of "homoiousios" if it had been put to him, but we'll never know; the most extreme Arians, fifty years later, were branded "Anoians", meaning that they didn't even think the Son was like the Father. Finally, the use of the term "Son of God" in the quoted passage is completely misleading, since this term was originally a moral one, not a metaphysical one. To say that someone thinks that Jesus was the Son of God is in itself almost completely meaningless. 84.69.173.175 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"[Alaric].. participated in Theodosius' campaign against Eugenius in 394, only to resume his rebellious behavior against Theodosius' son and eastern successor, Arcadius, shortly after Theodosius' death."
Shouldnt it be his Western Successor, Honorius? Alaric mobilized his forces against the Eastern Empire at Honorius' behest shortly before Arcadius' death, but most his "rebellious behavior" was directed against Honorius... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.171 ( talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The disinfobox was added to this article 10:24, 8 November 2006. It bore the wrong date until someone noticed today. That's over thirteen months. -- Wetman ( talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose to include references to the Theodosian Line as it is known in historical works. I was wondering what others think of this?-- Prinkipas ( talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article says when he passed a law against homosexuality this was the first time in the history of law that this had happenned - what about the Old Testament laws which called it an abomination punishable by death? Orlando098 ( talk) 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This emperor was responable for some of the most brutal demolitions of the classical world. Forget his forced massacres like that of the thessalonikans for example.
The list goes on.. This man destroyed so much important art and eradicated from history so much cultural heritage whether it be histories and sciences judged 'unholy' or his crusade of leveling every major classical santuary, statue and temple compex he could. The art patronage section has as much validity as Hitler giving Gandi a speach on ethics. At least build a section on his destruction of art, culture and the sciences. Forget his attacks on paganism, his brutality to the arts far outweighs his 'patronage.' He is one of the major christian figures who virtually single handedly landed europe in the dark ages and that is why his art patronage section is insulting to any encyclopedia. Iam amazed it is allowed to stand. His inhumanity to the arts and what was lost due to his actions completely eclipses any positive contribution to the arts. Reaper7 ( talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Council of Nicaea affirmed the prevailing view among Christians that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father. This concept was not merely asserted or proposed or introduced at the Council. It is widely recognized that Nicaea did not invent the dogma of the deity of Jesus. I have corrected this article, which had stated that the council had "asserted."
Greetings, I changed the redirect of "Catholic Church" under "Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion" to redirect as Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. The reason I did this was to make it NPOV towards the different churches claiming to be "Catholic", instead of it just assuming he meant the modern Roman Catholic Church. As his pronouncement was of the "Catholic Church" before the Great Schism, it would not be NPOV to redirect it to any certain church as at that time Christiandom did not exist as it does now. I would prefer to redirect it to a page dedicated solely to the pre-schism church, but I cannot find one so for now I think it best to stick with a disambiguation.
If you feel this edit is unfounded, please talk about it here!
I am very sorry that I am not logged in right now, my account is Gunnar123abc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question about the wording. In the heading, it say:
15 May 392 – 17 January 395 (whole empire)
However, if you read the "Battle of Frigidus" article, it says that after the battle (in 394), Theodosius took control of the entire empire. How was he the emperor of the whole empire in 392 if the battle of Frigidus didn't happen till 394? I hope you can understand my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.54.203 ( talk) 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we switch to this file in the infox? I saw that nearly all articles about pre-5th century Roman Empire use the pic of the bust heads instead. Sesroh Fo Maerd I ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge Can you explain why you think the designation of "late antiquity" is unnecessary? Is it for this reason that you removed mention of Peter Brown? What reason is there to extirpate the link from the lead? GPinkerton ( talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Here I reduced the phrase "was Roman emperor from 379 to 395, during Late Antiquity" to "was Roman emperor from 379 to 395". It's a tiny point and I was planning to leave it until Soidling's previous edit reminded me that at least one other editor agrees with me. In the lede, adding a later periodization strikes me as unhelpful to the casual reader; the dates of Theodosius's reign, I suggest, are sufficient. Adding the article to a Late Antiquity category, on the other hand, would be fine, and discussion later in the article on how Theodosius's reign is a major part of the definition of "Late Antiquity" could also be useful.
And here, I removed a specific in-text attribution to the eminent Peter Brown, leaving his comment and his reference. Here we are treating Professor Brown's comment as sufficiently authoritative to be made in Wikipedia's voice; we are not presenting it as one side in a controversy, for which in-text attribution might be desirable. This is an article about Theodosius, not about even his most eminent modern analysts.
Both of these points are minor, and if you can muster even a small consensus to revert, feel free. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
At this edit his sons have been removed from the list of co-rulers. Their (nominal) tenure is agreed to have overlapped with that of Theodosius - ergo, they were in fact his co-rulers. I have trouble imagining any good reason for not including them. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
At this edit I have reinstated a comment about his management of his court and indeed the entire Empire. No, there's no suggestion that he personally sold offices, but the comment is highly relevant to his style of governance and to his place in history, and hence to an article about the last undisputed ruler of the united Empire. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flavius Theodosius (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Most of the depiction of this event in this article is in error. Please revise. See main article: Massacre of Thessalonica Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest scholarship has the end of the games under Theodosius II not I: "Classicist Ingomar Hamlet says that, contrary to popular myth, Theodosius did not ban the Olympic games. [1] Sofie Remijsen indicates there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius and came to an end under Theodosius II instead. Two scholia on Lucian connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the Olympian Zeus during his reign. [2]: 49 " found in Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Page information lists all of you as contributors to this article. Tags are now gone, and I think this article deserves to be a Good Article instead of a c-class. Is there anyone who agrees? If so, please give it a peer review as a first step in that direction. Please verify it is well-written, verifiable with no OR and no copy-vios, that it addresses all the main aspects of the topic but stays focused, is neutral and appropriately illustrated. Any input would be welcome. Thank you all for creating this wonderful article and for allowing me to contribute! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I had some difficulty in verifying this ubiquitous claim that Theodosius disbanded the Vestals and extinguished their sacred fire. The two sources provided here are the online Encyclopedia Britannica and Handbook to Life in the Medieval World, neither of which is specialized on the topic and thus should be treated with caution. In the sources that do go at length into the emperor's policies, I found no mention of this at all.
All that is available on primary sources is seemingly a claim by Zosimus ( book 5) that, when Theodosius visited Rome after the Frigidus in 394, his Christian niece acted disrespectfully towards the last of the Vestals. Cameron, pp. 46–47, disbelieves the tale since Theodosius didn't visit Rome in 394. In the absence of further evidence I suggest that this excerpt be removed. Avilich ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
formerly it was thought that Theodosius did X, but now this is thought to be Y", and the Vestals aren't really the most important of these scholarly revisions. Avilich ( talk) 19:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
He also ended official state support for the traditional polytheist religions and customs. I believe that's incorrect. It was Gratian that did that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
it was formerly thought this but that is no longer the casein the article, and the issue of the Vestals is usually only mentioned in passing among the other things. Avilich ( talk) 22:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Well
Avilich you just rained all over my little parade didn't you?
Ah well, such is life on wiki! (It was a good idea though.)
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 22:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Smallchief ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a thorough and good article -- but, of course, I have a few suggestions and nitpicks. It wouldn't be a review if I didn't. So, here are my comments:
Summary section. In my opinion, this opening section has to be clearly written, thus more comments on it than on the remaining sections.
Para 1
Para 2
Background and career section, para one sentence two.
Accession section
First Civil War sub-section
Massacre sub-section
Third civil war sub-section
Aftermath subsection
Dead link
Religious policy section
Smallchief ( talk) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I see one minor problem. The last para of the summary says Theodosius fought three civil wars, but the present text only describes two. Changing the summary to say "two civil wars" seems like the easy solution if that doesn't conflict with the references. And way down the page in the second civil war section is the word "senator's." I don't think the apostrophe is correct.
With that first correction (if my reading of it is correct), I'll declare the article "good." However, I generally find wikipedia instructions incomprehensible -- and right now I am attempting to decipher the instructions for declaring an article good. (I'd probably function better in Theo's Rome than in the 21st century.) So, I'll try to fill out the template, etc., but I may need technical assistance.
Congrats! This was a monumental effort on your part. Smallchief ( talk) 08:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. (I think.) It's a hell of a good article. Smallchief ( talk) 17:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP Since I completely agree with your suggestion that the disagreement should be taken here, I am doing that. I note that in spite of that advice, you did not attempt to do so yourself. It would have evidenced your good faith effort if you had at least tried. I hope it evidences my good faith to you because I'm afraid I do agree that Avilich was correct in removing your changes. Let's review what you wrote:
One of the most important moments of his reign, and even in the history of the Roman Empire in general, was when he issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, [1]I have a problem with this claim. I do not agree on either point and I do not think your sources qualify as the best sources. I actually read Christianity Today and for an evangelical magazine it is entertaining and interesting, but I would never reference it as a source of balanced scholarship. See, I don't think that, no matter how long you looked, you would find either of those claims supported in the best sources. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but in the meantime, it is my opinion this should be removed as unsound and badly sourced.
It marks the end of the fourth-century religious controversy on the Trinity, occasioned by the Arian heresy and calling forth definitions of orthodox dogma by the Council of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). Acknowledgment of the true doctrine of the Trinity is made the test of State recognition.In fact the Arian controversy and other challenges to Orthodoxy continued for some time in a formal capacity and into the modern day in an informal one.
The citation of the Roman See as the yardstick of correct belief is significant; bracketing of the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria with that of the Pope was due to ti the Egyptian See's stalwart defence of the Trinitarian position, particularly under St. Athanasius. The last sentence of the Edict indicates that the Emperors contemplate the use of physical force in the service of orthodoxy; this is the first recorded instance of such a departure. - The Church and the State Through the Centuries Ed. Ehler, Sidney Z. and Morrall, John B.as the Roman Empire's State Religion. [2] [3] [4] [5] }}
That's my two cents.
References
In the most common sense, "mainstream" refers to Nicene Christianity, or rather the traditions which continue to claim adherence to the Nicene Creed.
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP Re-ping, I don't think the above one worked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not a matter of disagreement only, it is simply that he cannot delete information with 6 sources unilaterally and systematically without even creating a thread in Talk. He has numerous warnings for Edit War (Expulsions included), among others.
On the subject at hand, it is as simple as reading the Reign section. Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, which is a very remarkable fact in itself.
Currently the Lead totally blurs that. Reading the Lead I would never think that the Roman Empire officially became Christian for the first time under his reign.
Change the sources you want if you do not see them appropriate, but that fact must be maintained, it cannot be erased or blurred. BaylanSP ( talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is my proposal: I change all the controversial sources, I add new more reliable and conventional sources for Wikipedia, and without eliminating anything from the Lead, I add the simplified information extracted from the body of the article (Specifically from the beginning of the "Reign" section)
"[...] and was key in establishing the creed of Nicaea as the universal orthodoxy for Christianity making with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 the Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. [1] [2] [3]" BaylanSP ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not just "my personal opinion". I provide another source where it says it literally, this is easier:
"In 380 the three, reigning Roman Emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica that declared Nicene Christianity the state religion which all subjects were required to follow" [4]
If necessary I can present more sources in the same line. BaylanSP ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Here another source, it is also specified, literally, what I express above.
"380 - Edict of Thessalonica is issued, declaring Nicene Christianity as the official state religion" [5]
There are many sources along the same lines, claiming that either de facto, de iure, or both, Theodosius I's Edict of Thessalonica established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the imperial Roman state.
BaylanSP ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Another source, again, using literally the same words and in line with the previous ones:
"In February 380,Theodosius promulgated the Edict of Thessalonica ordering all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess Nicene Christianity, thus making it the official state religion" [6]
BaylanSP ( talk) 16:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Another source, about religion during the Roman Empire, also quite recent, is expressed along the same lines: "On February 27, 380 the Edict of Thessalonica issued by Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius declared Nicene Trinitarian Christianity to be the only legitimate religion of the Empire [...]" [7] BaylanSP ( talk) 16:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Following the same line of the previous ones, de facto or de jure, Nicene Christianity became the official religion of the Empire with Theodosius:
"Pagan culture and religious practice remained important through the fourth century AD, but in AD 392 the emperor Theodosius I forbade pagan worship, and Christianity effectively became the official religion of the Roman state."
Christianity in the Roman Empire - Dr. Nigel Pollard. [8]
Taking into account the enormous number of sources (of all dates) that claim that Theodosius with the Edict of Thessalonica established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, I think we should make a mention of it. I maintain my proposal of the beginning, it is quite solid with the historiography presented, and that in general.
Regards.
BaylanSP ( talk) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Also, this article is about Theodosius I, not the historiography of the Edict of Thessalonica. No doubt some historiography needs to be included somewhere – but probably not here, and certainly not the way you're doing. Avilich ( talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am confused why there is such an issue with source(s). One of the most used sources in this article, Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, page 35, states:
Thank you for your message, I quite agree with the "intention" of your message. However, I would like to know if I can edit this article and add the Edict of Thessaloniki and its sources.
I think it's fair that if the sources are clear and literal, users (Veterans or not) must be allowed to edit the articles.
Thanks. BaylanSP ( talk) 20:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that Avilich was correct in removing your changesand concerning the third part of the claim:
This latter part is quite interesting, and the source is acceptable, but it is completely off topic. This is an article about Theodosius. This is not an article about the Edict. If you want to write on all the many ramifications and impacts and effects of the Edict, it belongs there at Edict of Thessalonica not here. This is a side-trip down a rabbit hole.
I agree with a mention of the Edict in the lead being added. It was primarily the sources, that you have now dealt with, and evaluation of that act as "One of the most important moments of his reign, and even in the history of the Roman Empire in general" that I had trouble with. If you are willing to compromise by adding the Edict to the lead, and leaving the opinion out, then we have consensus between us on this. Add at will.That refers only to the first issue and says nothing about the third part being off topic.
What you just wrote here about the Edict is the exact opposite of what you have written on the Talk Page, that is, you have just completely changed your position right now on the subject, literally.then true?
Arnab Paulus Unless you can source this statement "Theodosius had major hand in the persecution on Pagans and other minorities in the Roman Empire which in part was because of the orthodox Christian doctrine and and the religious Christian fanatics and the Christian praised the persecution of the Pagans including the burning and destruction of several ancient temples, he never prevented or punished the damaging of several Hellenistic temples of classical antiquity, such as the
Serapeum of Alexandria, by Christian zealots."
to someone current (and not MacMullen since he is a minority view), I am going to revert it. It is incorrect.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
When and why was Theodosius given this honorific? It would be a good tidbit to add to the article. RMcPhillip ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It's in the notes at the end of the introduction I believe. Page 12 maybe? I can't see page numbers on the version I am accessing.
@ Dumuzid and @ Avilich, please tell me what issue you have with the new lead image. Crusader1096 ( message) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)