Talk:Theodoric the Great

message: Someone needs to mention his death. Interesting event...
Someone also needs to mention Theodoric Strabo... --64.147.190.154 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The date for Theodoric's ascension to the kingdom is in this article 488, but the article on the Ostrogoths says 476, and the article on Theodemir says it was 474. Other sites on the internet seem to suggest the latter, but none of what I can find seems completely reliable. --Tokle 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inheriting the throne

message: Under the “Assessment” heading in this article, a paragraph could be added outlining the explanation of events put forth by historian Norman Cantor regarding Theodoric’s change in policy toward Byzantium which took place shortly after Theodoric’s first decade of rule. Abandoning is former cautious appeasement of the Eastern emperor, Theodoric began to make ambitious alliances that were aimed at building a Germanic kingdom ruled by Goths and comprising Italy, Gaul, and even Spain. Cantor argues that these ambitions were Theodoric’s downfall, as they turned Byzantium against him and led the Eastern emperor to recognize Clovis’ hegemony over Gaul and form an alliance with him that significantly elevated his status.Cantor, Norman. Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. 106-107. --Jjhake 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment addition

message: This article says that Theodoric was of Arian faith. However, Norman Cantor says that we do not know what Arianism meant to Theodoric. He also says that although Theodoric did remain Arian, he did everything that he could to appease the Catholic church, except converting to it himself. The other things that Cantor says are that Theodoric allowed complete religious freedom, and that he recognized the authority of the pope not only over the Catholic religion, but also over the entire city of Rome (Theodoric went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized this. Cantor, Norman. Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. 109.
Spunkiel 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Norman Cantor says that Theodoric did not (and had no intention to) destroy the stability of Roman political ideas and political institutions in Italy. And, out of respect for the Roman institutions and ideas, he didn't try to break the stability of Roman civilization as a whole. I guess in other words, he was holding onto what was past, sort of like Rome did as she fell.
He also says that Theodoric wanted to give a new form to the empire in the West, but under the rule of a Gothic king. Cantor, Norman. Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. 110.Is this important enough to be included?
Spunkiel 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Heather (The Goths), Theodoric's deference to Constantinople -- the letter to Anastasius, etc., written after the Emperor's treaty with Clovis -- was all a pose. He was seeking recognition and legitimacy for personal and political purposes. It wasn't that he particularly "respected" Roman institutions; they were simply useful. He had already, during the struggle with Odoacer, threatened to withdraw testamentary powers from any Italian landowner who didn't actively support him -- an indication of what he could do if he felt like it. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman influences

message: Seems that the dates are all wrong in the second paragraph of the biography section. Firstly, the page on Theodorics father say he suceeded him in 474, when according to the article he was in Constantinople at this time. Secondly the date of his acession, 488, conflicts again with the date give in the page about his father (474). Either the dates of his time in the east are wrong, or the date when he became king, either way they don't make any sense Gibbo7111 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole dates dont make sense

message: The statue photograph shows plate armor which no one wore ca. 500 A.D. It seems that photograph should be moved down to the section about later legeds... AnonMoos 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph

message: Just going to point out the section about Theodoric's relations with the Vandals is nonsense. I'd edit it now, but I have work, and I am lazy. Good place to check is Procopius Wars III viii. 11 onwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.27 (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: Theodoric used titles "Augustus@ and "princeps Romanorum", didn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AUGUSTUS

message: The portrait of Theodoric on this page seems to be just a cropped version of a portrait of Justinian I. I propose the portrait be changed to the one in the Italian article on Theodoric. Any objections?
WebDman (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait

message: The Wiki page on Theoderic states, "Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands." What evidence has changed the conclusion of one of Gibbon's editors, who said, " ... almost all the ancient historians of the event make Theodoric [sic] the instigator, not the perpetrator, of the deed."? Alpinehermit (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Odoacer

message: Just curious. The translation of his name is the exact same as that of "Dietrich the Great" and his story is the same as well...12.22.31.66 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoderich_der_Gro%C3%9Fe. but Dietrich von Berne in a medieval lied apparently. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there is a small blurb in this wiki. Not sure if it is new or been there a while. It seems that "Theoderic" is a Latinized version of "Dietrich". Perhaps this can be added in the opening passage for clarity? I will try to add it, but no one ever likes when I edit...12.22.31.66 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dietrich" is just the normal medieval and modern German development of the Germanic name forms cited at the beginning of the article. (The change th > d happened in the 9th century, eo > ie slightly later).--Pfold (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Dietrich?

message: Didn't Theoderic fight against Bulgarians near Singidunum? Jotaro97 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with Bulgars?

message: For some reason, Rolf Badenhausen's website claiming that the Thidrekssaga isn't about Theoderic the Great is linked in the references here. As it is completely irrelevant to this page, I'm removing it. The proper place for discussing whether to include this fringe view on Wikipedia is the talk page for Legends about Theoderic the Great.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Badenhausen

message: Dear users: , , , , , , , and :
Thank you for your discussion on this topic. The discussion seems to have fizzled out at this point, and it doesn't feel like either side has a sweepingly strong case, so a vote seems natural. At this point, the options seem to be ROMAN or BYZANTINE. Please vote below:
* I don't know / soft Byzantine -- for the reasons stated above. This is one of the most on-the-line cases for trying to divide the "Roman" and "Byzantine" empires, so both sides have a strong case. Because: Zeno granted patrician status to Theodoric in order to legitimize control over a region (Rome) he no longer held, because Zeno was the first independent Byzantine emperor without any "Roman" counterpart, and because Zeno lived in modern day Turkey his whole life, I am picking Byzantine. Again, reasonable minds could disagree on this. Ikjbagl (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we can come to a compromise by saying "a patrician of Zeno's empire"? That way we can leave the rest of the article alone with its other alternate Byzantine and Roman references. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that leads the reader to more questions? I was say the simplest name for his empire was just the Roman Empire. In any case, whatever people have about the name of that empire, being a patrician was a type of status and I think no one doubts or doubted his ability to give that status. I don't think there were western and eastern versions for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Proposal

message: The infobox and some parts of the text currently claim that Theodoric was King of the Visigoths. However other parts of the text say he was regent for his grandson Athalaric, and this is backed up by reliable sources such as Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, pp. 288-289:
We should probably remove the claim that he was "King of the Visigoths". Athalaric was king, even if a child.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King of the Visigoths" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Mausoleum of Theoderic.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion