Talk:Theodoric the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Theodoric the Great as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.

Someone needs to mention his death. Intresting event...

Someone also needs to mention Theodoric Strabo... --64.147.190.154 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inheriting the throne

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)

488 is when he invaded Italy, isn't it? john k 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

476 is the fall of the empire or Oadoacer's rise to the throne, the 474 is way off-base. 488 is provisionally accepted by many, but not all, historians.71.212.242.187 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment addition

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.[1] --Jjhake 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also it would be helpful for most readers to comment on his title "the Great" as his was truly one of the most enlightened kingships in Europe from the Pax to Alfred the Great in Britain. I.e. he was tolerant, financed art, architecture, and public works, at least until the end of his reign71.212.242.187 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

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. [2]

Spunkiel 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman influences

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. [3]Is this important enough to be included?

Spunkiel 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Class

yes, but if i remember correctly, didnt we say in class that he was an Arian? maybe im wrong, but check your notes from class, cause i thought we did say that. resppaz8 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

we may have- i don't remember. but, we're supposed to use cantor for our source, and this is what he said. spunkiel 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

yes he was an Arrian as all germanic folk were at the time due to the Arrian missionaries that were expelled from the empire after Niceae finding a home amoingst the Germanics

[edit] source material=

It says in the article that Theodoric 'he became magister militum (or Master of Soldiers) in 483, and one year later he became consul. He afterwards returned to live among the Ostrogoths when he was 20 years old, and became their king in 488.', yet surely if he did return at age 20 it would have been in 474, if his birthdate was 454. Therefore he must have been older when he returned, otherwise he would not have been able to hold official office in Constantinople in 483 and 484. The dates just don't seem to add up.

[edit] Whole dates dont make sense

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)Gibbo 7111

[edit] Photograph

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)

[edit] Vandals

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)

[edit] AUGUSTUS

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