Talk:Theodosius I

message: "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)
thread_title: Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion

message: "[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)
thread_title: Alaric would resume his rebellious behaviour against Arcadius?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Disinfobox

message: 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)
thread_title: Line 

message: 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)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Art Patronage section insult to reality

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nicene Christianity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to redirect of "Catholic Church" under "Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  15 May 392 – 17 January 395 (whole empire) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Replacing the file?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "unnecessary" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Co-rulers including his sons? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Include the pages where this is stated, then? Avilich (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A court at which everything was for sale

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Massacre of Thessalonica 

message: 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.Hamlet, Ingomar. "Theodosius I. And The Olympic Games". Nikephoros 17 (2004): pp. 53-75.   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)
thread_title:  Olympic games 

message: 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)
thread_title:  {{u|GPinkerton}}   {{u|Avilich}}  {{u|Richard Keatinge}}  {{u|Kansas Bear}}  {{u|Wetman}}  {{u|Hardyplants}} {{u|Dimadick}}   

message: Arnab Paulus Unless you can source this statement  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)
replies: text: Arnab Paulus Please respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  New addition  

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