The Historians of Late Antiquity (49 page)

Christian authors tend to present a more idealized picture of the emperor’s military exploits. Rufinus’ history was written to raise the spirits of those discouraged by recent barbarian invasions. Thus he seeks to portray Theodosius as a second Constantine, who does not merely conquer usurpers or enemies, but rather scores victories for the triumph of the true faith over heresy and paganism (Consolino 1994: 264–8; Thélamon 1981: 311–21). For example, Rufinus describes the defeat of Magnus Maximus as a victory not only because “a tyranny had been suppressed,” but also because Theodosius restored to Valentinian II “the Catholic faith which his mother,” the Arian Justina, “had violated” (11.17).

Socrates provides a more detailed account of Theodosius’ military activities than the one we find in Rufinus. He describes the battle with Maximus as a bloodless one, claiming that the soldiers of the usurper were so overawed by Theodosius’ preparations that they surrendered their leader to him. In an aside in a discussion of Theodosius’ triumphal procession through Rome, Socrates says that the intellectual pagan senator Symmachus had performed an oration before the usurper, and, fearing for his life after Maximus’ fall, had sought sanctuary in a church (5.14.4–6). The anecdote allows Socrates to emphasize Theodosius’ mercy and to cast a glancing blow against a prominent pagan. Sozomen reveals that Maximus publicly claimed to be moving into Italy on behalf of orthodox Christianity and in opposition to the Arianism of Valentinian’s court. The historian rejects this claim as simply a ruse by a power-hungry general. Maximus was an orthodox Christian, and Sozomen here must be reporting traces of the propaganda and counter-propaganda issued by the various courts in the period leading up to the war. Sozomen’s information on the battle itself, however, replicates that of Socrates (7.13–14).

For Theodoret, the extreme youth of Valentinian II encouraged Magnus Maximus to invade Italy (5.12). Like Sozomen, he is eager to rebut Maximus’ claim to be the upholder of orthodoxy against the Arian Valentinian. The historian thus reproduces the usurper’s appeal to the young emperor to return to orthodoxy or face invasion, which must have been publicized by the usurper (5.14). Maximus’ arguments appear to have won him some adherents, for Theodoret then provides details he claims to derive from a rebuttal letter of Theodosius, in which the legitimate emperor chastises Valentinian for his heresy and explains that it has led to the dangerous situation which he now faces (5.15). The battle itself takes up only a sentence in Theodoret: Valentinian first was returned to orthodoxy, and then the usurper was executed.

While Orosius does not provide information about church history, he does stress the importance of Theodosius’ orthodoxy in guaranteeing his military victories. Theodosius is described as equal in military skills to Trajan, and superior in piety. Because of this superior piety, Orosius argues, Theodosius enjoyed bloodless victories over his enemies, and he also surpassed Trajan, who was without male children, in dynastic creation, since the offspring of Theodosius continued to rule the empire up to Orosius’ day (7.34.2–4). In contrast to the Greek ecclesiastical historians, Orosius lauds the military successes of Theodosius which followed immediately upon his accession to the throne. By trust in Christ, Orosius says, Theodosius was able to overcome “Scythian” tribes which had even struck fear in Alexander the Great. Orosius further adds that Theodosius received the submission of all of the Goths and made a peace with the Persians which still lasted in Orosius’ day (7.34.5–8). To a greater extent than other historians, Orosius emphasizes the power and nobility of Theodosius’ enemies to better demonstrate the role of fervent piety in his success. He emphasizes that Theodosius’ forces were inferior to Maximus’, and that victory was therefore only possible through religious faith. Orosius similarly claims that Maximus was “strong and honorable and worthy to be Augustus,” if only he had not revolted (7.34.9). Orosius draws a lengthy lesson from Theodosius’ bloodless victory. “Under Christian kings and in Christian times,” when civil wars must be fought, they are concluded without violence (7.35.6).

The Battle of the Frigidus

Theodosius’ preparations to return to the East after the defeat of Maximus included placing his general, Arbogast, in control of the
west. For several years, Arbogast was the power behind the throne, issuing orders in the name of the teenaged emperor Valentinian II, who committed suicide under suspicious circumstances in May 392 (Croke 1976). After several months of strained relations between Arbogast and Theodosius, Arbogast, who as a barbarian could not aspire to rule the empire, named his own emperor, Eugenius, an obscure former teacher of rhetoric. Although Eugenius was a Christian, under his brief reign pagan ritual was revived. Thus when Arbogast and Eugenius were defeated by Theodosius at the Frigidus river in September 394, it was widely seen as a victory for Christianity. The battle began with an attack by Theodosius’ Gothic troops, which was repulsed. Theodosius’ army was ultimately victorious, however, thanks to a heavy wind which suddenly blew against the army of the usurper and was widely held among Christians to be a miracle.

Eunapius’ partisan approach to Theodosius is most clear in his treatment of the Battle of the Frigidus (Buck 1988: 47–50;
fr
. 60.1). He removes almost every hint of pagan sympathies from the defeated army, such as the Jupiter and Hercules banners under which they fought. Other sources agree that the turning point was a hard, cold wind that blew against the forces of Eugenius and Arbogast. This wind, which other versions attributed to the intercession of the Christian deity, Eunapius replaced with a non-existent eclipse. Theodosius’ forces win in a very unheroic fashion, by falling upon the western forces while they slept and killing the majority in their beds.

In Rufinus, the Battle of the Frigidus is set forth as a conflict between Christianity and paganism, the military equivalent of the destruction of the Serapeum (11.33). To further this picture, Rufinus highlights the contrast between Theodosius and the aggressive pagan Nicomachus Flavianus, while mentioning Eugenius and Arbogast only infrequently (Thélamon 1981: 311–21). Theodosius’ preparations are religious, not military: he arms himself “not so much with the aid of weapons and arms as with fasts and prayers,” he prostrates himself before reliquaries, and he holds nightly vigils before the battle. These preparations contrast with those of the pagans, who explore the entrails of sheep and are reassured by Flavianus that the divination predicts victory for Eugenius. After the first clash of armies, Theodosius’ barbarian troops are routed, but this, Rufinus assures us, was arranged by God to ensure that the battle would be won by Romans and not by Goths. At this point in the battle Theodosius
prostrates himself and prays to God, and a heavy wind frustrates the forces of Eugenius.

Rufinus is particularly keen to make the victory at the Frigidus psychological and ideological rather than simply military. When Nicomachus Flavianus committed suicide at the end of the battle, he was despondent, Rufinus says, more over the failure of divination than the failure of the usurpation. Similarly, Rufinus concludes his account of the battle with the comment that the victory was glorious more because of the failed prophecies and hopes of the pagans than because of the death of the usurper (11.33).

Socrates gives a much more straightforward account of the Battle of the Frigidus than Rufinus, and he provides almost no religious content. In Socrates, Arbogast and Eugenius plot together to kill Valentinian II out of simple lust for power. There is no suggestion that the battle is a conflict between Christianity and paganism. While Theodosius does pray, and a hard wind does blow, Socrates does not draw an explicit lesson from the events. On the whole, Socrates’ treatment provides evidence for the claim that he is less concerned about paganism than are the other church historians (5.25; Urbainczyk 1997b: 156–9).

Sozomen reintegrates religious material into his treatment of the conflict (7.24). He shows Theodosius preparing to head west by praying at the church he had erected to hold the recently discovered head of John the Baptist. As the armies meet in battle, Sozomen describes the familiar story of the emperor prostrating himself and praying for help. In Sozomen’s version, however, the prayer has an immediate effect when some of Eugenius’ officers, who had been stationed in ambush, agree to defect in return for high posts in Theodosius’ army. Sozomen omits the information on Nicomachus Flavianus which Rufinus provided, and he does not explicitly represent the battle as a clash between paganism and Christianity. An anecdote he provides does, however, allude to this idea. At the very time that the battle was being won in the west, a demon appeared in the church where Theodosius had prayed. After pausing to taunt John the Baptist for being decapitated, the demon announced that he, presumably as a stand-in for paganism, had been conquered.

Theodoret’s account of the battle is more artfully constructed but less accurate than the other ecclesiastical historians’ accounts (5.24). In his version, Theodosius points out the contrast between the Cross of Christ, which was the standard of his army, and the image of Hercules put forward by the enemy. The emperor also has a dream in which John the Baptist and the Apostle Philip promise their aid,
and to prove its significance, one of his soldiers has the same dream. As in other Christian versions, the wind blinded the army of the usurpers, who in Theodoret’s account surrendered when they realized that God opposes them. When Eugenius is brought before him, Theodosius rebuked him first for his usurpation, and then for his trust in Hercules. Thus Theodoret portrays the purpose of the war more as the suppression of a usurpation than as the upholding of Christianity. While the Christian God is essential to the story, the moral is primarily that Theodosius “always sought divine aid, and always received it” (5.24.17).

Just as Orosius had underlined the virtues of Maximus to further glorify Theodosius’ victory, he also portrays Arbogast as a veritable superman, “outstanding in courage, foresight, boldness, and power” (7.35.11). In both cases, Orosius asserts, it is the power of God which overcame the evil plans of men. Orosius describes at length the hard wind, which alternately ripped the shields out of the enemies’ hands and crushed the shields too tightly against them. Hurled javelins were blown back to transfix the throwers. Again Orosius emphasizes the lack of bloodshed, although he mentions in passing the death of Theodosius’ auxiliary troops, ten thousand Goths, which he sees as a benefit rather than a loss. Orosius ends his account with a challenge to pagans to provide a single example from all of Roman history of a war ending so pleasantly and easily. This demonstrates, he asserts, that heaven prefers the side trusting in God to the side trusting in itself and its idols (7.35.22).

Conclusion

Theodosius died suddenly in 395. He left behind two sons, Honorius and Arcadius, who were weak emperors with undistinguished reigns. Arcadius’ son Theodosius II had a long but equally undistinguished reign. In retrospect, the emperor seemed unusually strong and successful in war when compared to emperors who did not personally take the field. Theodosius’ posthumous reputation increased substantially at the hands of Christians of the next generation. He was the last emperor to rule the entire Christian empire, and thus remained an important symbol for generations to come. The ruinous civil wars and religious intolerance which the pagan historians deplored were soon overlooked. Late antique Christian historians gathered diverse elements of his reign to create a portrait of an ideal emperor, who was strong enough to crush paganism and heresy, yet submissive to clerical authority.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, P. (1987) “Some Aspects of Hellenism in the Early Greek Church Historians,”
Traditio 43
: 368–81.

Allen, P. (1990) “The Use of Heretics and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians: Studies in Socrates and Theodoret,” in G. Clarke, B. Croke, A.E. Nobbs, and R. Mortley, eds,
Reading the Past in Late Antiquity
, Rushcutters Bay, Australia: Australian National University Press, 266–289.

Amidon, P.R. (1997)
The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11
, New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, G. (1993)
The Second Sophistic
, London: Routledge.

Angliviel de la Beaumelle, L. (1992) “La Torture dans les Res Gestae d’Ammien Marcellin,” in M. Christol, ed.,
Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’Empire romain au IVe siècle après J.-C
., Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 91–113.

Arnaud-Lindet, M.-P. (1990)
Orose: Histoire contre les païens
, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Arnaud-Lindet, M.-P. (1994)
Festus: Abrégé des hauts faits du peuple romain
, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Arnheim, M.T.W. (1972)
The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire
, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Asmussen, J.P. (1983) “Christians in Iran,” in
Cambridge History of Iran
, vol.
3
, pt. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Athanassiadi, P. (1981/92)
Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography
, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Second edition (1992)
Julian: An Intellectual Biography
, London: Routledge.

Auerbach, E. (1957) [1946]
Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
, W. Trask, tr., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.