Talk:Maximinus Thrax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I have deleted this paragraph:

  • Pontianus, bishop of Rome, was banished with the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia, and died there in 235, and, according to Baronius (Ann. 137, 138), his successor Anteros met a like fate. Origen thought it expedient to seek safety with his friend Firmilianus, bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea. That province was under the government of Serenianus, whom Firmilianus describes (apud Cyprian, Ep. 75) as "acerbus et dirus persecutor." Frequent earthquakes had roused the panic-stricken population to rage against the Christians as the cause of all disasters (Origen in Matt. xxiv. 9). This was all the more keenly felt after the comparatively long tranquility which they had enjoyed under Alexander Severus and his predecessors. From his retirement Origen addressed two treatises On Martyrdom and On Prayer to his disciple Ambrosius, a deacon of the church of Alexandria (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiatica vi. 28), and Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, both of whom were taken as prisoners to Germany (Origen Exhort. ad Mart. 41).

It has no real content related to Maximinus, but might be useful to someone writing about Christian history, so I've moved it here.

The date of death was changed from May 10 to June 24...I can only find one source for the latter date and several for the former...anyone know for sure? Everyking 17:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] OOps

This is a good article but I think that it is too culled from the current (and ancient sources) biases regarding this emperor. Maximinus Thrax must have been an amazing and competent man to have risen in the roman social and military establishment with the bias of his upbringing hanging over his head. This bias is reproduced in your article even though hints of this impressive character are in the sources that you quote:

For Elagabalus is said to have made sport of him most foully, saying, "You are reported, Maximinus, to have outworn at times sixteen and twenty and thirty soldiers; can you avail thirty times with a woman?" And when Maximinus saw the disgraceful prince beginning thus, he left the service. In the end, however, the friends of Elagabalus retained him, lest this also be added to Elagabalus's ill-fame, that the bravest man of his time — whom some called Hercules, others Achilles, and others Ajax — had been driven from his army.

And

Having therefore accepted the legion, he immediately began to train it. On every fifth day he had his men parade in armour and fight a sham battle against one another. Their swords, corselets, helmets, shields, tunics, in fact all their arms, he inspected daily; indeed, he himself provided for their boots, so that he was exactly like a father to the troops.

And

When these things had now made him a distinguished man, Alexander, a good judge of great worth, to his own destruction put him in command of the entire army. Everyone, everywhere, was pleased — tribunes, generals, and men. So now Alexander's whole army, which had fallen into a lethargy to a great extent under Elagabalus, Maximinus brought back to his own standard of discipline. (Historia Augusta –The Two Maximini)

How would you describe a soldier who rose through the ranks, to the head of all the army and seems to have had success and praise at every step of the way.

This ancient source certainly makes Maximinus sound like a principled and thoughtful man. I believe that much of the bias on this historical character is based around Gibbon’s unfortunate characterization of Maximinus: “Though a stranger to real wisdom, he was not devoid of selfish cunning” (Gibbon D&F 80). I think that this perception of Maximinus has more to do with Gibbon’s snobbery and narrative practices than anything else.

Here is a question: Did Maximinus want to be emperor? Do any of the ancient sources say that he wanted to be emperor? What would happen to you and the nation, if some of your officers killed the prime minister/president and declared you the grand poo-bah. In Roman day’s it would either be your head on the ground or civil war, and the resulting deaths of thousands. Is it possible to see how he might be trying to make the best out of a bad situation!

Lastly many Christian’s have the misguided view that Maximinus was a great prosecutor of Christians. This is untrue! He messed with the 2 bishops (for good reasons I but I can’t remember them right now. I think that they were failing to ‘render under Caesar’ ) and these two deaths got him on the historical record of as an enemy of the state. There were no prescriptions of ordinary Christians. Just another smear for old Maximinus.

In my mind he is one of the most interesting and dynamic of all the emperors. Lots of bad and inaccurate press! He needs a press agent.

[edit] Was Maximinus really a giant?

An eight foot six stature (260 cm) for the Emperor seems rather exaggerated, and indeed unlikely. He'd have seemed literally twice as tall as common men. I think 6 ft 6 (200 cm) seems more reasonable for the giant man. Of course, I wasn't alive back then, and history has proved that men as tall as 9 feet could exist under certain endocrinal or environmental circumstances, i.e. Robert Wadlow.

I wouldn't make assumptions about these things. It's not impossible for people to reach such heights, as Mr. Wadlow proved. Complete random estimates like 6'6" are useless if there is no evidence to support it. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

well how was his height determined? was it given in cubits or in the impepiral system or metric system from the sources that said he was that tall? do they even have his sekleton?


The chief "evidence" for Maximinus' height is Historia Avgvsta, a notoriously unreliable source prone to much exaggeration.

"He was of such size, so Cordus reports, that men said he was six inches over eight feet in height"
||
"Erat praeterea, ut refert Cordus, magnitudine tanta ut octo pedes digitis sex diceretur egressus"
-HA, Maximini Duo, 6

"Maximinus was almost eight and a half feet tall"
||
"am cum esset Maximinus pedum, ut diximus, octo et prope semis"
-HA, Maximini Duo, 28.

See also Herodian; vi.8.1; vii.1.2.


There's no doubt that he was taller than average, but perhaps not 252 cm +. Roman 8'6" = UK Imperial 8'3" = 2.529 m ~ 2.53 m.
Just for comparison, Shaq is 7'1" = 2.16 m, and he's one big guy! Yao Ming is 7'6" = 2.31 m.

As far as I know, no "sekletons" are available of ANY Roman emperor.
Some were cremated, in any case. <->ive 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say his height was exaggerated. We can see similar claims being made about Charlemagne and William Wallace being such unlikely "giants."

[edit] Removal of "8 feet 6 inches tall" claims

I have removed these claims as they are NOT verifiable. They stem from one source - which is generally held to be unreliable - reporting that "men said that he was 8 foot six"; frankly, this is not enough. We *can* be reasonably sure that he was taller and stronger than his contemporaries, and that he was good at wrestling - the claim of gigantic stature can be ascribed to exaggeration. McNutcase 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We should mention something about his height, ancient sources, no matter how reliable are hard to come by. This page is linked to from the gigantism page and it gives no mention of his height which is somewhat confusing. --BHC 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So we note that he was taller than average... McNutcase 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro looks good now, we don't claim he's 8'6, just that he was said to be. --BHC 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair assumptions

I think its unfair to base the idea of "average heights" in a modern political sense in the respect that it would be like viewing islam in a 21st century american opinion in the 5th century A.D. The reason I say this is because no one really knows what the "average height" was in his era, and further more it is down right proposterous to base that of modern day societies aesthetic view of "average height". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.78.62 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone know where the people writting this article come to the idea of his height being 6ft 6 inches?, it would be nice to see a source on that than base it off modern day aesthetic thinking. in the Historia Avgvsta it is said that he was almost 8ft 6inches. How does anyone know he was exaggerating? secondly if he was exaggerating chances are he would have compared it to somthing to base it off of such as cordus saying he was a grass hopper in comparasin to Maximinus thrax, but that is not there.


Height, oh yes, how important. Accounts seem to confirm that he was a man of larger than average stature, so is this not good enough for ye all? Tom J.

In the metric system, 2 m is a round and nice figure for a "tall guy". Converting to the American units, one gets 6t 6in which indeed looks too exact to be a rough estimate, unlike the metric system's rough estimate.
Saying "(roughly) 2 m" one means something like 194 cm to 210 cm, which I personally believe to 99.9% was Thrax's height.
Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello,um

I would have like to put a ‘citation needed’ on the ‘ruthless’ persecution of Christians, however I don’t really know how to. As far as I can remember (history major –emphasis on Roman and Medieval history) that there is no evidence of widespread persecution of Christians during Maximinus’ reign, although later sources would seem to paint him as a cruel and despicable man. It seems that he did have two church leaders put to death, and this is the act that put him on the list. Is there a way in Wikipedia, where the quality of sources could be checked?

If you look through the ancient sources, this poor fellow seems to be a victim of ancient anti-barbarian propaganda. Actually a very positive figure emerges when you read the ancient source (Cassius Dio?).He seems an honorable and Loyal man, who is forced into a position by his men, who loved him. He never went to rome because he was fighting to protect it, also people would not have given a positive welcome. Gibbons hated him as well, as he did not ‘fit’ into his highly structured order. As well as sullying the Roman ‘pureness’ of the Princeps, he is the unwitting first in a long line of craven men who let their own desires jerk the empire to it’s knees. Poor Thrax, badly in need of a image make-over. What is the ancient source for Thrax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazymycroft (talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)