# Talk:Theodosius I

"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)

Can you explain what you understand to be the relationships and distinctions between the Homoians and the Arians? How are they similar?  How are the different? Paul August  ☎ 20:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Basically, Arius had taught that Jesus had been created by, and was therefore different from and inferior to, God the Father.  This was the belief that had been condemened as heresy by the Council of Nicea; the Nicene Creed that had been established by the bishops there declared the the Father and Son were "homoousios", which can be variously translated as "of the same same nature" or "of the same substance."  The council also explicity declared Arius and his followers to be heretics.  Mainstream chruchmen (with a few exceptions) accepted the heretic nature of Arius and they did not preach that Jesus was a created or inferior being; however, many did not accept the "homoousios" formula.  Some declared that Jesus was of a "like substance/nature" (homoiousios) to God the Father; others wanted to get rid of discussion about "nature" altogether, and would only say that Jesus was "like (homoi) the Father, according to the scriptures."  It was this last group who had been favored by Valens, though the idea that there were rigidly defined factions is perhaps a bit overschematic; many churchmen changed their position to match prevailing wisdom or political expediencey.  The non-Nicene churchmen would not have identified themselves as Arians.
The issue is clouded by a couple of points.  First, the champions of Nicene theology, like Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose of Milan, didn't really care about these distinctions: as far as they were concerned, anyone who didn't accept the homoousios formula was an Arian whether they admitted it or not.  Since their faction ended up prevailing under Theodosius, it's their writings that have been by and large used to understand the conflict, though modern scholars attempt to see past their biases to understand precisely how the other side defined themselves.  Second, outside the Roman Empire, the Christian churches in Germany were explicitly Arian, and when the Germans conquered the West in the 5th century AD, they brought their Arian religion with them, setting off another round of conflict that the Nicenes eventually won again.  Thus the early 4th century, late 4th century, and 5th century conflicts tend to be collapsed into a single, long-running Arian vs. "Catholic" battle.
The salient facts for this article are that the conflict in the late 4th century was one fought within the church organization, rather than between two separate churches; while Valens had favored Homoians and occasionally intervened (sometimes violently) in Church affairs, many Nicene bishops were allowed to keep their positions throughout his reign.  Cases like that of the Nicene Gregory of Nazianzus, who claimed to be the "real" bishop of Constantinople while another Homoian churchman also held the role (and was recognized as bishop by most of the city), were rare; usually conflict broke out when a bishop died and the factions vied to establish one of their own as his successor.  Theodosius, however, intervened much more forcefully, ejecting the incumbant bishop in Constantinople and recognizing Gregory of Nazianzus, and establishing the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and legally defined Christianity.  His strong intervention, along with the shameful death of a known non-Nicene emperor, combined to establish the Nicene faith in the East.
Anway, I've gone on quite a bit here; hope it answers your question.  The question now is, how to best integrate all this into the article? --Jfruh 21:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. I think I understand the situation a bit better now. I still have some questions though. Some of what you are saying seems at variance with our article on Arianism which says:

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".

Is the above in your view inaccurate?  How did the belief of the "Homoians" differ from those of the Arians? Is the term Arian being used correctly elsewhere in the article?  Specifically:
"…Theodosius expelled the Arian bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople."
and
"Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had held Arian positions in the decades leading up to Theodosius' accession, he managed to impose Nicene uniformity during his reign."
Also if you do reinsert your edits, since there does seem to be some controversy surrounding this, (as one would expect from what may be a longstanding historical misnomer), please consider including more explanation (perhaps in a footnote?) and citing some sources.
Paul August  ☎ 22:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
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)

slightly more neutral wording added; section itself seems kind of pointless since the article seems to address the issues as relevant to the subject, and they're covered in full detail elsewhere.  184.167.56.194 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2013 (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)

That someone apparently didn't read carefully enough then. The infobox differentiated between the phases of Theodosius' reign. For a similar example, see Constantine I. I've reverted the change for now. Iblardi (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, Emperor Theodosius I was the LAST UNIFIED Roman Emperor. He therefore had a single predecessor, and it was only his successors that were split into West and East. I'll correct that. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (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.

Delphi was dismantled on his orders, today the city is simply foundations because of his orders, Temple of Apollo (Delphi) and all the most famous classical pieces of art in the santuary destroyed.
Temple of Vesta- guess who wiped it off the map?
Serapeum of Alexandriadismantledto its foundations by..
His much copied ideals of stealing art monuments from other nations when he chose not to destroy it as it represented power.
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)

I couldn't agree more! Theodosius was one of the most destructive forces against culture and art in Western history. This section is an insult. I can possibly justify one or two sentences being tacked on somewhere else, but the section itself has to go. 67.68.46.217 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The temple of Vesta was closed by him and not destroyed. It was destroyed during the 15. and 16. century, in the age of humanism and the Renaissance. It's the same with most of the ancient buildings, only a few were really destroyed at the end of antiquity, in the most cases the stones were simply stolen in the later medieval age or later. The whole article is in its current form very strange, because it overstresses some details or relates a long term-process to a single person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.190.162 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2011 (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."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk)  Senator2029 | talk 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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) 

The so-called "NPOV" is in itself a POV. It's a revision of what was accepted history until non-Catholic polemicists (particularly Protestants, but also Greeks) tried to dispute it. Referring to the Catholic religion of the Roman empire as anything other than the Roman Catholic faith is POV in favor of the Protestants and Greeks. The notion that there was no Catholic faith prior to the 1054 Schism is also favorable to Greeks. --ChristianHistory (talk) 04:30, 30 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) 

Good question, but the battle of Frigidus was against Eugenius, a usurper, so his brief rule is not considered legitimate. Theodosius was emperor of the entire empire from the death of Valentinian II onwards.Tataryn77 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2013 (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)

Thanks for opening discussion. You seem to be referring to two edits:
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)

They were his successors, and are already indicated as such, so there's no need to list them again just below (Honorius's reign in particular only overlaps slightly with that of his father). Your own use of the word 'nominal' also goes against calling them 'rulers' while Theodosius was alive. Avilich (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems odd to me, their time as augusti definitely overlapped with his. As for actually ruling, neither of them ever did much of that. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
That they are listed as successors is already enough. Anything further than that is pointless hairsplitting and unnecessarily inflates the infobox. Avilich (talk) 19:12, 27 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)

The context of this quote seems to be Ambrose reflecting on the lack of church influence in the empire's fiscal policy during the late 4th century. There's no suggestion in that source that this was an important or characteristic policy of Theodosius's administration, or that Theodosius, among the other emperors of this time, deserves special mention or credit for this. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The context - in Brown - is that this was an important and characteristic policy of Theodosius's administration, of clear historical relevance. if anything it needs expansion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Include the pages where this is stated, then? Avilich (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, Paulinus reflecting on the immense power of greed. "avarice, a drive which neither abundant wealth nor shortage could diminish, increasing more and more among men and particularly in the holders of high office, so that intervening with them was an exceptionally heavy task because everything [at court] was up for sale. This avarice was what first brought every evil to Italy, and from then onwards everything went to the worst." Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 4 May 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)

If no one from this article steps up, I will do it, but don't follow a non-response with an objection to someone else inputting here, okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have now done something. If anyone objects to the length in comparison to the length of other sections, the entire 'Aftermath' section is easily removed without losing anything especially important. Any other objections, please bring here and let's hash them out. I am always willing to accommodate and adjust to well sourced material - even if you just don't like my prose style - whatever, we can work it out. This is a great article btw. Thank you for letting me be a part of it now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 16 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.  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." found in Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire.  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)

Jenhawk777 Doesn't look terrible. I would just go ahead with GAN. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello dear buidhe! You rock! Avilich and I are in the process of re-verifying some details. Have done one, still looking for the other. RL is interfering! We'll get it soon. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 22 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)
Avilich Give me a day or two! I also have had little luck varifying this in journal articles but some luck in a few books I need to read through before agreeing you are right. It certainly is ubiquitous though!  RL is interfering for me this weekend as well, so just give me a little time and let me see what I can scrounge. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I also don't know about Theodosius turning pagan holidys into workdays. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Avilich That one I do have.  look on page 387. 
References

 Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I went ahead and accessed that article I asked for on the Resource exchange as you suggested just so I could read it even if I couldn't reference it, which turns out to be unnecessary since it directly answers your assertion about the vestals as correct.  The vestals continued till 415 apparently.  It's a very interesting article, and while I won't relay all the points she makes, I am now wondering if this shouldn't be included in the reverse now: it is commonly believed that blah blah, but recent scholarship indicates such and so. Simply because it is so very ubiquitous and yet is apparently wrong. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I now have a Pdf version I can legitimately reference. Imo, it should be added, but I will wait to hear from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Avilich WTH!! I am online now and probably won't be much longer so I just went ahead and changed it. I hope you're good with it! If not just say so. :-) We'll fix it till you are. I am really sincerely glad you caught that. I must have found twenty different versions of Theodosius ended the vestals without anyone giving any analysis of why they thought that. I never would have questioned it if you hadn't brought it up.  Ha ha!!  Brittanica is wrong and we are right!!  You so, so rock dude!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks :^) I don't think anything about the Vestals needs to be mentioned here, only in their own article. The article has or will probably have a significant amount of phrases like "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)
Avilich Oh darn, I like it in there.  It makes sense with what else is there imo.  Are you flexible on this?  How strongly do you feel about it? Then there is also this: 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)
I don't feel strongly and you can keep it if you wish, but if it sounds good here then it will probably sound just as good in the lead of the Vestal Virgin article. We know that several pro-Christian and pro-orthodox initiatives were incorrectly attributed to Theodosius after his death in attempt to portray him as the champion of orthodoxy and the destroyer of paganism (as Cameron and others demonstrate), including the issue of subsidies which you brought up (and which yes indeed belongs to Gratian). This will entail several instances of it was formerly thought this but that is no longer the case in 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)
Avilich Okay, I will defer to your greater experience.  I can definitely see how a litany of "it was formerly thought" could get old really fast. Now I have to go mess with the vestal article.  Maybe I'll just put it on the talk page.  What about the Olympics thing? It's also a "formerly thought". Should it be left or removed?
You know, we should consider that they could all be lumped together. What you just wrote here about adopting things in order to portray T1 as the champion of orthodoxy is actually kind of an important fact if you think about it. It's a piece of information that affects everything about how Theodosius is interpreted. If you took it and combined it with the three "formerly attributed to Theodosius" things - the finances, the vestals and the Olympics- it would make a perfect paragraph to replace what's there: maybe 4 or 5 sentences. You could do that! Take the two sentences already there, throw out the one on claiming he ended the Olympics as it will be implied anyway, use the same source for the vestals as it also discusses Gratian, so all you need is a source for the Christians puffing his legend, and it sounds like Cameron has it. Voila! What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 23 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)
How did I spoil anything? I wrote the paragraph as you suggested, only I placed some of the info on footnotes instead of squeezing them together. I assume this is all some incremental effort, what I did was not intended to be a final say on the matter. Avilich (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Avilich My bad!  All I saw was the stuff removed from pagan policy, I saw  no footnotes, so after reading this I went back and hunted that foot note down! It hadn't occurred to me to look in another section, but I love that last paragraph.  I think it's the perfect place for the footnote too, and absolutely the perfect discussion. I am truly blown away!  I absolutely love your work. It's wonderful, and as far as I am concerned this is all resolved in the best possible manner - that of making the article and the encyclopedia superior in every way. Hey - we work well together!  I hope I have the opportunity again some time and that RL doesn't keep you too long away from us. You have too much of value to contribute. Thank you for all of this, from beginning to end. You've been great. And finally, I agree with buidhe that this is now ready for GAN. How about if I go nominate and include your name as one of the nominators?  I don't mind if you decide to remain a silent partner in that, or whatever you feel you can do, but it seems to me that the honor of nominating this belongs to you as much as anyone.  What do you say? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodosius I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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

I would move the last sentence in your summary paragraphs: "He was the last Roman emperor to rule over a united empire but died without having completely consolidated control of his armies or of his Gothic allies" up to paragraph one, as I think it deserves more prominence. You might adapt that sentence and reference it with something like the following sentence. "Although he had co-emperors, "Theodosius is generally acknowledged by scholars as the last man to rule" both the Eastern and the Western Roman Empires. (Galsworthy, How Rome Fell, page 264)
 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Para 2

Why "belatedly"?  Word not needed?
 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
"to imperial rank". I doubt the average reader understands that "imperial rank" is the same as emperor, nor how one emperor can appoint another. Why not a simpler and more comprehensible formulation.  "The senior emperor Gratian appointed Theodosius as the Eastern Roman emperor." Or something similar.
 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
"much of the eastern Roman armies"?  Grammar? "much of the eastern Roman army" sounds better.
 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
"victory"?  Was it really a victory if Theodosius offered "highly favorable" terms to the Goths. The Romans always claimed victory over barbarians.
Therefore the sources say victory, and whether it really was or not is an existential question beyond my means of answering. The victors write the histories. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
"382"?  "only two years" after he rose to the throne in 379?  "only" not needed, and maybe text should say "little more than 2 years" or something similar.
 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Background and career section, para one sentence two.

"there's little evidence that suggests".  Maybe "Little evidence suggests" is better.
 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Accession section

I doubt that the average reader knows that "augustus" means "emperor."  Why not the word "emperor" throughout the article instead of a less familiar term? Or if you think the title augustus is important, explain it.
Okay, I went through the article and changed all the uses of augustus to emperor, but it is less accurate, so someone may come along at some point and change them all back. It's  Done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Under this section, I would be inclined to add a paraphrase of "Theodosius I was based in Constantinople, and for his own dynastic reasons (he wanted his two sons each eventually to inherit half of the empire) refused to appoint a recognized counterpart in the west. As a result he was faced with rumbling discontent there, as well as dangerous usurpers, who found plentiful support among the bureaucrats and military officers who felt they were not getting a fair share of the imperial cake." (Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, pages 29-30)
 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
First Civil War sub-section

Seems to me that the main point in this section is obscured by too much detail. Do we really need to know about Gratian and his wives?  Rather the important points are that Maximus was a rebel (a usurper?).  And that Theodosius didn't have the resources to deal with him immediately. And who "acclaimed" Maximus as an emperor?
Perhaps you can answer a question that has been in my mind since I first came to this article. These sections were written more by what happened within the years they reference than by the title claimed. We could change the section titles to represent that, or we could move all the personal material to the background and career section, and retitle it Life and career. I'm glad you said something since it has bothered me since I got here!  What do you think is the best approach?  I vote for Life and career if you care! :-) Then all the extraneous data will be gone. It should be somewhere though imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Massacre sub-section

In this section the format of the footnotes changes, and the format is mixed during the remainder of the article. I'm not much bothered by that, as the sources are clear -- which is the most important characteristic of footnotes, but it may be a deal-breaker for some in declaring an article "good."
This section is the first section written by me; art and religion follow. I always use the citation templates.  The previous sections were written before I got here, and several have been revised by my wonderful companion at arms, Avilich, but I have no idea what citation method he uses. I wanted him included in this nomination as he has been so helpful and cooperative and a stickler for accuracy - which I adore - but the GAN template isn't set up to include two nominees. I knew that a FAN would never pass this mix of citation styles but did not think that was part of the criteria for GAN. I will go through and change them all to the Templates if you think it's necessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Third civil war sub-section

You might make clear here that Eugenius was a pagan, or appealed to pagans, for support. And that this was probably the last time that pagans competed for power with Christianity in the Empire. That makes it clearer what the alleged divine favor was about.
I'm not the formal nominator, and I don't know who exactly is allowed to comment in GAN, but it must be said that this section needs a complete rewrite. The idea of a pagan revival is a fabrication, and there was no religious dimension to the war. I'm busy this week so I can't spend too much time on wp. Avilich (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Avilich!  Normally anyone can comment, but it is restricted to those who have not contributed to the article, so unfortunately that leaves you out. However, since neither one of us wrote this section, I very much need your expert input on what should be included here. Please come to my talk page and let's put something together that will improve this section. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Aftermath subsection

There are several dashes in this sub-section which seem unnecessary.
Dashes unnecessary?!? What?! DUDE! Dashes rock!  :-) Okay fine. I used them because they made it clear three words were one phrase, but as you wish. They are gone now.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Dead link

Footnote 71 leads to a dead link.
I do not know what the problem is, but it is not a dead link when I click it. It leads directly to the article in question. 71, right? "How the obelisks reached Rome: evidence of Roman double-ships" at [[1]]? Could you mean another number? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Religious policy section

This lengthy section looks excellent to me after a quick reading, but possibly comments after I look at it more thoroughly.
Smallchief (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Smallchief Thank you so much! This is excellent. I am truly grateful. I will work on the Third civil war tonight.  I have company this week so my time is limited, but I will cram as much in as quickly as possible! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Take your time. I'm bothered by one sentence in this section: 'Modern scholarship sees the notion of pagan aristocrats united in a "heroic and cultured resistance" who rose up against the ruthless advance of Christianity in a final battle near Frigidus in 394, as romantic myth.'  That seems a bit magisterial, as interpretations of history to me are never settled science, but always subject to changing (and not necessarily better) opinions by historians. Anyway, I'll consult an authority or two on this subject, and be prepared to respond to your redraft (although I'll be hiding out in the wilderness, a long ways from my computer, next week).
I think also I would characterize the Battle of Frigidus as "bloody" or some similar adjective to give the reader the insight that this was a major battle and not just a skirmish. Cheers. And good work. Smallchief (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I changed that sentence so that it is attributed only to the scholar who says it. It's heavily discussed in more than one source - who invented the idea after WWII and why -- but I can't remember these other sources off the top of my head. I can find them if needs be, but I do believe the claim is the current one. You know how things shift and change.
I added bloody, but it is a swear word for the Brits, so I also added extremely. I hope that works. It already says thousands of Goths died the first day. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Smallchief I think I have completed those revisions for now - unless you fund something else that needs redoing! :-) There is no third civil war: sections have been retitled accordingly. I have no idea how that happened. It does seem that whenever I redo an article and leave sections alone, it always creates problems for ≠me. I should not have missed this one, but I did.  Sorry. It is fixed now hopefully.
Did you make a decision on the citation styles? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 4 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)

Smallchief  Done I have the same problem with WP instructions!  Thank you so much for this. I am grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 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, 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.
This one is just incorrect: 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.
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.
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. }}
That's my two cents.  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."
BaylanSP 
(talk) 10:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

BaylanSP, putting my cards on the table here, I agree with Jenhawk777's qualms and critiques.  That said, I am all for continued efforts to better source and redraft the article, but one thing gives me pause.  You say that "Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, which is a very remarkable fact in itself."  This is fine and understandable as a personal opinion, but we don't base Wikipedia articles on personal opinions.  If you'd like to see that as a cornerstone of the article, it would be best to find reliable secondary sources that say as much.  Just a thought.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Lol, your Cambridge source doesn't say that Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Picking 3 sources in the article at random – Errington 1997 (pp. 414–415), McLynn 2005 (pp. 79–88) and Hebblewhite 2020 (chapter 2) – they say he did not do that. Avilich (talk) 13:50, 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"
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"

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"
BaylanSP 
(talk) 16:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources are detailed studies of of the subject in question, and they all rely on outdated scholarship. Once again, McLynn, Errington, Hebblewhite and the Cambridge source you yourself posted say otherwise. And for the love of god, learn how to indent your posts properly, look at the mess you did here. Avilich (talk) 16:09, 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 [...]" 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. 
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)

BaylanSP While I do thank you for coming here and talking this through, I beg you, please do follow proper indenting. It makes it virtually impossible to find who said what, when, without it, it ignores WP courtesy, and is inconsiderate of everyone here trying to participate in this discussion. Please demonstrate good faith by cooperating with proper indenting for the sake of your fellow editors. And please avoid personal attacks.
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.
Avilich You are free to post additional scholarly statements if there is scholarship that challenges the view, but please do not revert the addition to the lead. Don't remove, add.
Even if one of these is a minority view, they should both be included in the article. Write one of your wonderful paragraphs with alternate views, keeping in mind that establishing Christianity as official was already in the article. The only real difference is that it didn't name the Edict specifically, and didn't make any claims for its effect.
Write, don't revert. We will get a better product for the encyclopedia if we cooperate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Our editor in question has tried (unsuccessfully) to have me blocked for edit warring, has behaved unimpressively elsewhere, has ignored every single rebuttal, has done blatant bludgeoning, and for all I know may not even speak English properly. I already offered my own sources – most of which you can literally obtain for free on LibGen or SciHub – and argued that they, not his, reflect the scholarly consensus. His sources appear to be either (1) non-specialist publications which reflect scholarship that has become outdated since the 1990s or (2) specialist publications that support what I've been saying. The WP:ONUS is on whoever is pushing a disputed revision; I'm free to revert after making reasonable objections. Someday someone will have to rework the edict of Thessalonica article, which is in horrible shape, but none of this belongs here. The sources I mentioned agree that the edict wasn't a big deal in Theodosius' reign; writing 'wonderful paragraphs' takes time and patience, and, in the meantime, it's better to have a few lines of truth than an unwieldy mixture of truth and outdated information. Avilich (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Avilich  Dearheart, think of how much time you have spent fighting over this and don't try to feed me nonsense about not having time to write quality work. You always have time for that. It's what you do. Meet us part way here.
Please, don't focus on the person, focus on the work. Personal attacks never produce anything good.
Please just write what you have using your own sources and add it to the article. It will be a good thing. Do that good thing, please. Act in good faith for my sake, for the article's sake, for the sake of peace and goodwill if nothing else. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems that Avilich wants to continue to remove the Edict of Thessalonica, its effects and sources indefinitely. He (probably) doesn't appear to be acting in good faith currently, Jenhawk777.
A cordial regard, BaylanSP (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP Thank you for the indent! And the cordial response. :-) Let's give him some time. I happen to know he is involved elsewhere right now. Your content is in the article. Let's see how he responds without making assumptions.
Avilich is, generally, one of the best editors I have ever run across. He is prickly about well-sourced accuracy, but I don't find that to be a flaw on WP. I tend to be that way myself. It seems to me that everyone doing quality work here ends up that way after a while - or leaves. Avilich has been on WP quite awhile - longer than I have - and his work is exemplary. You will have no problem with him if your work matches his standards. That's just the way he is, and it isn't a bad thing altogether - though it is fair to say he could go about that in a more reasonable manner at times.
It is easy to get sucked into edit warring and personal attacks and harder to avoid them, I do understand, but it is so important to learn to avoid that here. Fights need both sides, and often a concern about 'winning', to keep going. You can choose not to do that. You have lots of other options. Keeping focused on our purpose - a quality encyclopedia - and what's best for meeting that goal - and setting aside who is right, for what is right - works every time in my experience. I appreciate your response here and hope we will run into each other again in the future under better circumstances. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The sources that I gave, that the article uses, and that you ignored, were written by people who dedicated their careers to studying the subject. You can't just get some random BBC article or some other non-specialist publication by someone who isn't up to date with the most recent scholarship and put it on par with those better ones. This one, for example, demonstrates that the edict of Thessalonica did not make christianity the state religion: it was applicable to Constantinople only, contemporaries seem not to have taken it that seriously, and Roman law in general was reactive and local as opposed to active and global. You also want to add that Theodosius banned paganism in 392, but sources like Cameron 2010, Hebblewhite 2020 and Errington 2006, who all analyzed the primary evidence with care, say he did not do that. That you found an off-topic encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire claiming otherwise in passing is not good enough. I'm not making a full listing of the scholarship here, and I rest my case now. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The article and its previous recent stable version (changed by you) already affirmed that the Edict of Thessalonica established the Nicene Christianity and most of the historiography also affirms that the Edict of Thessalonica established the Nicene Christianity the religion of the Empire, the amount of sources that can be contributed in that line are huge and I might never finish.(As has been seen haha). I cannot verify that your sources are less or more worthy than mine, even if you insist on it.
As they have suggested above, instead of deleting sources, you can also include your sources in the article and argue with them that other authors differ with the previously established version of the topic, that is something quite common in the multitude of Wikipedia articles, I think that is how you would avoid deleting content and sources and in turn giving a more complete overview of the article.
I think it is the most reasonable and realistic thing to do given the current situation. Regards. BaylanSP (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP -- what Avilich is saying is that their sources are better than yours, and I would agree, for instance as specialist academic journals are to be preferred over generalist popular publications for a mass audience.  It doesn't make sense to accord those things equal weight in a Wikipedia article.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and what I say is that at no time has it been possible to verify that its sources are completely opposite to those of the historiography of the previous sources, there are no citations or a page provided.
Nor is there a clear criterion of which authors or format is more valid or less and why, as I said there are many sources of all kinds and formats that affirm that the Edict of Thessalonica established Nicene Christianity the religion of the Empire.
However, for me I end it, I will not continue with this nonsense discussion, this Talk was almost completely "solved" before it was even written and as I said before, this clearly reminds of the novel "The Trial" by Kafka. A real shame. All the best for all. BaylanSP (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Your sources include a journalist, an archaeologist, a professor of religious ethics, and an online primary-source-book. None of them, it seems, go any further that simply asserting what you're trying to prove here; there's no review of the available scholarship, there's no evaluation of the combined body of primary evidence, there's little to no contextualizing. My sources – which, again, you can download for free – are historians and classicists who do all that. For this reason, it's impossible to compare and 'argue' those conflicting claims in the body of the article. What's obviously the case here is that modern scholarship isn't known to the general public yet. The people who actually devoted their careers to studying the subject think your claims aren't true, so you can't put in the article that they are.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 repeat again, and for the last time, you have not contributed any pages or exact quotes from those sources to verify it. It is not a question of mistrust, it is necessary to be able to corroborate it. Nobody (I would bet that even those who support you) have read the sources you have sent, precisely because of that.
Interestingly, I have now been able to see this from the French Wikipedia about the Edict of Thessalonica, and it is just a perfect example of what I was trying to explain earlier -> ("you can also include your sources in the article and argue with them that other authors differ with the previously established version of the topic")
Translated from French:
"Quickly forgotten by his contemporaries, the edict of Thessalonica was subsequently incorporated into Book XVI of the Theodosian Code. Historiography has long wanted to read in it the establishment of Nicene orthodoxy as a state religion, a vision from which research has largely distanced itself since the end of the twentieth century regarding a complex phenomenon that spans several decades. The Edict of Thessalonica nonetheless remains an important milestone towards the official Christianization of the Roman Empire."
It perfectly combines the different views of the different authors (mine and yours) in a middle and neutral position, and presents them rigorously. This is how articles should be edited, giving a complete overview in cases like this, and not setting constant locks, red lines and indefinitely reverting editions and initiating empty debates or Edit Wars. However, I give up. Do what you want with the article, the conclusion of this Talk was already previously decided before the start. It makes me sad that the English Wikipedia (the largest) is "sometimes" in such a mediocre and closed-minded state. I will no longer continue in this Kafkaesque loop of constant waste of time. Greetings to all, bye.
BaylanSP (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Off you go then, and thanks for proving I was right all along. Avilich (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I won't attempt to explain anything else to this person - such as not using Wikipedia as its own reference - but I now want this information that was translated from the French to be added to this article in our words. This paragraph he references - which supports what you said - belongs here under "Religious policy", Arianism and orthodoxy; please edit the fourth paragraph as you see fit. Since this doesn't include a reference we can check, I live in hope you can provide one. One paragraph on the Edict is sufficient imho, but it does need that updated discussion instead of what is there now.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Jenhawk, the French paragraph expresses what we need to say and does it very well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I did some due diligence and looked up both Avilich and BaylanSP's sources-most of Avilich's sources require accounts to access, and I had trouble finding the relevant books by Harrington and Hebblewhite on libgen. Nonetheless, I think there's less a disagreement on facts, but more a neglect of nuance. Did the Edict of Thessalonia declare Nicene orthodoxy as a state religion? There are actually a few issues at play: (i) Did the edict declare a state religion on its face or was it just a declaration of legitimacy? (ii) What was the intended effect of this edict? (iii) What was the actual effect of this edict? The sources appear at first sight to give differing answers to the same question, but are actually speaking to different issues.
I think that French paragraph captures the nuance on this issue well, but we will need to check its source, and I think that paragraph can be expressed in far simpler and clearer language. I think both Avilich and BaylanSP are studious and diligent editors, and it's a pity that one just walks away. I also applaud Jenhawk777's patience. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Bless you darlin'  HollerithPunchCard. I lift a glass to you!  Thank you!

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:

"Then, at Salonica in February 380, Theodosius issued a comprehensive edict defining and  enforcing Nicene orthodoxy, one of the most significant documents in European history:
"It is Our will that all peoples ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practise that religion which the divine (sic) Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans...this is the religion followed by Bishop Damasus (of  Rome) and  by Peter,  bishop  of  Alexandria, a man of apostolic  sanctity: that is, according to the apostolic discipline of the evangelical doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty, and of the Holy Trinity."
"We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We judge demented and insane (dementes vesanosque), shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their  meeting  places  shall  not  receive  the  name  of  churches, and they shall be smitten first by Divine vengeance, and secondly by the retribution of Our hostility,  which We shall assume in accordance with the Divine judgement."
"Thus the unity among Christians, which Constantine had vainly sought, was to be imposed directly by law." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
So you pasted the text of the edict here, what's that supposed to prove? I don't think Williams is even a historian to begin with, but this source specifically singles out your own source for criticism. It denies that it was 'one of the most significant documents in European history', denies that it was for universal application, and denies that it was far-reaching. In page 415 he says the law was aimed specifically at Constantinople, and word of it probably never reached other places outside of the city. Avilich (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"...specifically singles out your own source for criticism."
Actually, it is not MY source and that source is used repeatedly throughout this article, and just now you are stating your concern of its reliability? Where have you been? Also, you were present when the "oh-so" knowledgeable decided that a reliable source does not require the author to be an historian!
And it would appear the source you have linked shows only one page and requires payment. Thus fails verifiability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I offered more sources in the discussion above, all of which postdate Williams 1994 and all of which disagree with his conclusions, so where have you been? Your source could account for 99% of the citations in the article and it would not matter, since the paragraph on the edict of Thessalonica does not use it as a reference. You don't actually need an account to see it, as I thrice stated above; not my problem if you can't verify it. Here's two more sources for good measure: Maraval 2009 and Hebblewhite 2020. These you can't obtain for free, but the French article mentioned above treats them as if they agree with the one I just posted. Avilich (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Still personalizing your comments I see. I asked a question, which you chose to personalize("your source"), not once but twice now. Maybe if you stuck to the facts and sources instead of resorting to childish comments, consensus would be easier to achieve. Your loss, not mine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to achieve anything, the consensus at the beginning of the discussion was not mine to obtain, and I already had what I came for before you even arrived. In the meantime, you're free to keep wasting your time with red herrings such as my vocabulary (personalizing comments, imagine getting worked up over that lol), it makes me sound more rational, concise and reasonable in comparison. Avilich (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


### About Theodosius I article
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 Of course you can edit as you see fit. You do not need my or anyone else's permission to do so. But keep in mind that just because you add it, that does not mean others will agree that it should stay, and that matters too. The judicious way to go about anything you know will be controversial is to take it to the talk page before adding it in. This is not a WP requirement, but WP works on consensus, and it is easier to gain before rather than after.
If you simply insert material that has already been reverted and contested, it will no doubt be reverted yet again, and this time, if you take it to arbitration or ask for a Third opinion or put forth a request for comment, you can see from the discussion that has already taken place that I and at least one other editor will side against including more discussion of the impact of the Edict in this article. It is not pertinent to anything about Theodosius.
It is an interesting side-trip, and it might belong in a book, or in an article on that topic, but this is WP and we only have space and time for the high points of each topic. I suppose if you could show it had impact on Theodosius himself, or his actions after the fact as influenced by that declaration, then I would agree it should be there, but I don't think that's true, so I doubt it is findable. I could certainly be wrong but until then I will support more on the Edict not being added to this already long article.
As an addendum: It is my experience that length of time on WP matters a great deal. There is a mountain of method, style and etiquette to learn here and a lot of the instruction for it all is dense, long and obscurely written by programmers who often don't communicate as well in plain English as they do in programming language. It all takes time - and screwing up - and a good bit of effort to get a good handle on even the core of it all. It seems so simple at the start - just write and publish - then it turns out it is way more complicated. There is no fault in being new and not knowing any of that, and most of us simply want to help you become veterans. That is certainly my goal here. Yes edit as you wish. Avoid conflicts. If you are smart enough to write here, you are smart enough to figure out for yourself how.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
With that change of position and your description of the importance of prestige, seniority and the rules of form and the multitude of procedures, I now fully understand what it is to personally feel a Kafkaesque situation, quite curious if I am honest.
BaylanSP (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

BaylanSP I think you have misunderstood me. In my initial response, I divided your edit into three parts. The first part I originally opposed because of its sources. Then I supported including it after you changed to quality references. The second claim was an error, so I opposed it's inclusion, and that has not been corrected. The third I qualified as off-topic, so I opposed it as well. That is what I refer to here - the third section that elaborates on the Edict. I apologize for any contribution I made to the confusion here. I have never been a fan of Kafka. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Read all your contributions in that Talk, I haven't really misunderstood anything. A veteran Wikipedian and not a fan of Kafka? Well, I see it completely normal given the situation haha :-)BaylanSP (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP My response at T1-talk is directly copied here: I do agree that Avilich was correct in removing your changes and 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.
Then I said 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.
In what way is this 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?
Avilich has now responded, and I agree with what he says, as does Dumuzid, which gives a consensus which is what WP requires. I really should move this to the Theodosius talk page. It might be relevant if mediation is ever required. Do you object? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have not convinced me that you have not changed your position, I have read all your words in Talk and there are substantial changes in your positions with me and the other user.
Regarding the other question, honestly, do what you think is most convenient. It doesn't matter because nothing will really change, everything will result in an eternal lazy procedure without reaching anything beyond what a veteran says or such anodyne Wikipedia rule says according to subjective criteria again wielded by veterans. Of course, and all always maintaining an exquisite and condescending language to make up the fact that you are already in an empty discussion or procedure from the beginning.
Personally, I would like to close my participation with you and Talk. Do what you think is best. Nothing more. Goodbye.
BaylanSP (talk) 1:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
BaylanSP If you were right and I had made anything other than changes that responded to you doing what was asked - at least me thinking you had - then you would, I'm sure, have gleefully posted those as examples here. You haven't because your claims are completely off base. Attacking me here in response to efforts to genuinely try and help you is uncalled for and unwise. Consider the discussion closed. Do not return to my Talkpage. Address all issues at Thedosius I. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

Dimadick the claim of "several" temples that you added is not supported archaeologically. There is a reasonably in depth discussion here: [2]Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have made no additions to the text of the article, I only added categories. Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Dimadick! My bad! I misread the diff concerning Arnab Paulus. Duh... Please forgive me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Arnab Paulus Please respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You've not once pinged him properly, but you don't have to anyway. You can just revert, and the burden of justifying his edits will be on him. I have saved you the trouble. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hah! You're right! That was careless of me. Typed it in by hand and simply skipped part of it, going too fast and not carefully enough. Thank you Avilich for acting on this. I don't guess he needs me to tell him he's been reverted now. Oh well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 12 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)

Well RMcPhillip I did not know the answer to that question and thought I should, and after some looking and a lucky accident, I think I found the answer in Mark Hebblewhite's biography of Theodosius I: Theodosius and the Limits of Empire.
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. 

At any rate, fn #2 reads: "Claudian de VI cos. Hon. 55f. Leppin (2003) 231 notes that at first this distinction (the great), was simply a way to differentiate him, Theodosius I, from his grandson Theodosius II. It took on the idea of 'historically significant' at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 due to his promotion of Nicene Christianity. See Leppin (2003) 259, fn 9, and Lippold (1968) 138, fn1, for a full list of references".
Ta daaaaa!!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, nice bit of research! I'll add this explanation to the article (unless you beat me to it).
(Perhaps we should call his grandson "Theodosius the Not So Great."  ;)
Thanks RMcPhillip (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
LOL!! I like that RMcPhillip - "Theodosius the Not So Great." Add at will. It was your question after all. I never would have looked on my own. Finding it was dumb luck really!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid and @Avilich, please tell me what issue you have with the new lead image. Crusader1096 (message) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The coin was the image in place when this became a GA, and there is nothing wrong with it. An explicitly labeled picture of him is better than a "head found near a statue base". The source of the image in Commons isn't sure if this is Theodosius I or II, and the cited source in the article only contains a rough sketch, though I'd be willing to change my mind if the identification could be made more explicit. Avilich (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
What would be the problem with using his depiction in the Missorium of Theodosius I? I mean, it is a fairly known work of art and it definitely depicts Theodosius. Tintero21 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There's been a minor but significant edit in the article's summary about the conclusion of the Gothic War that is completely unsubstantiated, it was made in November 17th. I tried to revert the change but was hit with multiple warnings for some reason, so I ask here that the article's summary is reverted again to reflect on the Gothic War being ended by Theodosius I with advantageous terms to the Roman Empire, which is the only reason such an event is even mentioned at all in the emperor's summary. It's the consensus that was reached ages ago and to change it must be first thoroughly discussed and looked into. Thank you. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense @CyanoTex I'm tagging you as well because you were involved in these edits so I thought that's fair. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The article body and cited sources of both this article and Gothic War (376–382) clearly substantiates favorable terms for the Goths, not the Romans. That's all I'll say, as others are handling it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I will exit this conversation, as this is not exactly my field. CyanoTex (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
At the very worst the terms are neutral (although I'd beg to differ), but even in that case Rome benefited in the short term by avoiding a conflict they clearly could not win. I see no simple straightforward disadvantage for the Romans in these sources, only that much later the Goths ended up being a problem. Which for Theodosius' age, is irrelevant. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't care what your personal analysis is, and you shouldn't care about mine: we cite sources to write the article body, and the lead is a summary of the cited material in the body. Remsense ‥ 论 02:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
It isn't my personal analysis, it's in the very article about the Gothic War. Ignoring the "Gothic victory" result which I find wrong but is irrelevant to this article, in the "peace deal" paragraph it's very plainly stated that Roman leadership knew that it was practically impossible to win militarily against the Goths so the peace deal was beneficial to them. It's also stated that it changed the way Rome handled barbarians after this point, but it still doesn't paint it in any definitive negative light. At the very, very least, I ask that the results of the peace treaty in the summary are simply described as this: A smart political maneuver from Theodosius that gave the empire some breathing room, but set a dangerous precedent for latter diplomatic handling of barbarian conflicts by Rome. Do I have your permission to make such a change so you can look at it and tell me if it's ok to keep? I will make it as neutral as possible. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The distinctly positive bits you're getting from the passage of Gothic War (376–382)#Peace and consequences are directly quoting a contemporary orator. The parts from secondary sources you're bundling in with that as if it were one analysis do not paint the terms as favorable to Rome! Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course there's conflicting opinions between sources otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this further. What I'm asking is to at least give some nuance to the peace treaty rather than just disregarding it as a bad deal for Rome. How about we state both the short term critical gains of the treaty *and* the autonomy and lack of assimilation of the Goths that inevitably hurt the Roman Empire later on? I'm trying to reach a middle point here friend. And I apologize for the continuous reverts to the article, I wasn't aware that this was such a contested issue here. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
There's no real nuance to be had. The lead is a summary of a summary, and the correct summary of our reliable secondary sources is the terms were not positive. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and what you're suggesting is privileging the primary sources you find compelling ahead of our secondary sources, which is original research. We won't be crafting our own special analysis because we don't like what actual scholars have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 02:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
How is it privileging if both the positives and negatives of the Gothic War are included? Wouldn't a non opinionated summary of how Theodosius ended the war be a positive for the article anyway? Even if we kept the same article and just removed the word "disadvantageous", the article is improved. It's the same way plenty of similar articles are approached, from controversial historical figures to contested military conflicts etc. It would be privileging if we disregarded the secondary or primary sources concerning the article, the latter of which we are currently doing. That Roman orator might have an obvious Roman bias, but it doesn't mean he can't shed light on what the peace treaty achieved and what it meant for Rome in the short term. I still kindly ask that we somewhat rephrase the last part of our summary. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
We cite secondary sources, and do not provide our own analysis of primary sources—that would be original research. Please see WP:PRIMARY, and consider perusing that entire page, which is the guideline on how we judge the reliability of courses. Remsense ‥ 论 03:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks for your time. 79.103.186.102 (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)