It's something I've read people mentioning in other forums.They claim that Theodoric's actually the Western Emperor by virtue of being called Semper Augustus by his subjects and having the regalia of the western emperor sent to him by the Eastern Emperor.
Question:Was Theodoric the Great ever considered a Roman Emperor by his subjects or the ERE?
- Thread starter Avrorrange
- Start date
I'd heard about the Regalia being sent, but I'm not sure if the idea was for Theodoric to proclaim himself Emperor or st up some Roman nobleman as a puppet. Either way, afaik he never did so.
Theoderic received many titles and honors from Emperor Zeno, Patrician, Magister Militum and Consul, but no Emperor could, or would, name a barbarian co-emperor.
For example...
Ricimer and his nephew Gundabad were by all means the rulers of the WRE at their times, but they never declared themselves Emperors, despite being the ones controlling the armies that kept their puppet emperors on the throne.
The main reason was because the aristocracy wouldn't accept that and they wanted to rule peacefully, they didn't wanted problems with the italians.
Odoacer was careful about this, declaring that he was Nepos client and claiming he was a simple patrician, but even when he admited to be the true ruler of Italy he only called himself Rex, king, and not Imperator or Augustus.
Theoderic did the same as Odoacer, he declared himself a subject of Constantinople and as patricius he ruled Italy as a Governor, or Viceroy if you prefer.
What happened was that Anastasius Dicorus, confirmed Theoderic as the ruler of Italy under him, as a means to keep the illusion that the Roman Empire still held those lands. Both sides knew that to be false, had Dicorus tried to impose his rule Theoderic would just ignore him, but they both needed to keep the illusion.
Theoderic wanted to keep the natives in peace, and what better way than to be a nominal vassal of Constantinople, and Dicorus was freshly out of the Isaurian War and needed to further consolidate his rule and by having Theoderic claiming to be a subject he gained the prestige and legitimacy that he needed.
Theoderic could had declared a Italian Emperor but that would force the ERE to fight them, an Emperor in Constantinople couldn't accept a Emperor in Ravena that he didn't appointed himself.
By claiming to be subject to the East he ensured Dicorus good will and peace in his lands, and that was what made his Roman subjects to compare him Trajan and Valentinian.
It was thanks to his peaceful rule that he gained the informal title of August for he remembered them the Emperors of old, he keep religious tolerance, gave the people peace and justice, revived the games in the circus (entertained the masses), but most of all he gave them peace and prosperity as they hadn't known for a long time.
For the Goths he was their greatest King in history, for the Romans in Italy he looked in their eyes like one of the Good Emperors.
WhoMadeWho
Banned
I've been listening to the History of Byzantium, and reportedly, he was not considered to be an Emperor by the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire.
So what exactly was the point of sending the imperial regalia of the western emperor to Theodoric?This is the part that doesn't make any sense at all in my opinion.I believe the ERE didn't make Theodoric Emperor,but it doesn't make sense for them to send the imperial regalia to him if they have no desires to make him emperor.
WhoMadeWho
Banned
No idea. No source I've seen indicates that Theodoric was considered Emperor at any point by the Byzantines or the Italians he ruled.
I'm intrigued. What happens if Zeno or Anastasius have a moment of Theodosian foresight and realise that the only way the Roman Empire can be saved from disintegration in the West is by proclaiming Theoderic Western Roman Emperor and thus giving the Goths a stake in the preservation of the Empire? Would the war-weary Roman nobility really go to civil war over this?
It certainly sounds interesting. Whilst a bit mad by some perceptions of the Romans - it would be a fascinating What If.
The idea is interesting but it would take a very different Roman Empire than the one that existed during the reign of Anastasius and Zeno.
Zeno had a too weak grip on power and it took him all of his reign to reinforce the Eastern Empire and even then he was forced to fight several revolts during his reign. Despite being a descent of a family that had lived for five centuries as Roman citizens the fact that he had been born on a tribe from the borderlands made his own citizens see him as an upstart barbarian, the only thing that worked on his favor was that he followed the "right kind" of Christianity instead of the Arian believes that the Germans preferred.
If Zeno, that was considered an upstart half barbarian, dared to declare that Theoderic was the new Augustus of the West and his equal, for if he declares him as Emperor then he declares that he, Zeno, and Theoderic are equals, then expect massive uprisings and several revolts.
Anastasius managed to be decently loved by the people, was recognized as a true Roman (he had been born in Illyria and this played in his favor given that many Emperors came from the Illyrian provinces) but was a Miaphysite and this created him problems with the cleric, especially because he ruled during the Acacian schism.
While his reign was more smooth than Zeno's he also couldn't make Theoderic an Emperor without massive problems.
First Theoderic was an Arian, Anastasius an Miaphysite and most Romans were Christians. If he declared Theoderic, Augustus and Imperator, expect massive religious uprisings and the Acacian schism could get even worst than it was.
The same problems that Zeno would had also apply to Anastasius.
To get past this problems the Roman sense of superiority as to disappear and that needs a POD during the Republic.
Historically the new kingdoms that formed in the lands of the former Western Empire had always two systems, one that applied to the new peoples and another one that applied to the "Romans".
Law codes usually were divided in two, one to the Goths and another to the Romans.
Both sides were usually encourage to stay apart from each other, given that neither consider the other an equal. The Romans, despite all, liked to see themselves as the ones on the top a marble column while they looked down on the "barbarians". The Goths, while they admired the Roman culture and civilization, they thought them as weak and soft.
The "I'm your viceroy but don't even attempt to give me orders" was the best both sides could accept.
The Romans were, theoretically, above the Goths (Theoderic was "officially" a vassal of Constantinople). In contrast the Goths left the Romans at peace and in exchange for protection all they demanded was taxes.
Extra: If they declare Theoderic Emperor, he might not accept the title. Being the Augustus of the West would put him on the wrong end of the Franks and of the Visigoths given that if he accepts the title he is declaring that the lands the others control are his, because those lands were part of the Western Empire, and this could cause war between them.