Talk:Battle of the Frigidus

Sentence needs clarifications
It was through Arbogast they found the opportunity to restore pagan rule in the Empire through force.

Who is they? The sentence also contains two 'through's, change one of them when sentence is fixed.K... 12:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

eugenius: christian, pagan, or bowl of fruit?
which is he? this page says christian, his page says pagan. front page says pagan too.pauli 15:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Pagan. Fixed. The Senate would not have put up a Christian as Emperor. Stbalbach 16:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed a section that, no offense intended at all, was far too biased. "Triumph of the Christian God". Not objective at all in my mind. We're speaking about a battle here, not some theological religious showdown.


 * He was a Christian, his advisors were pagan. Str1977 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eugenius was a christian rethor, and he was a puppet of generalissimo Arbogastes, So he didn't have any "advisors". His predecessor Valentinian II used to complain that he was a slave of Arbogastes, and it was said that he had less rights than a common citizen, since he was locked up in his palace by the generalissimo. See PLRE. The senate of Rome just followed Arbogastes - They had to perform as scapegoat. The senate was a powerless body. And after all supporting Arbogastes was profitable, for he provided career and power opportunities to the peoples of Symmachus.
 * To Str1977: Allthoug pagans and christians fought at both sides at Frigidus, the battle surely did have an element of being a religious showdown. Arbogastes used the Ambrosius cathedral of Milan as a stable for his horses and the bishop had to run for his life, for he was responsible for the removal of the Altar of Victory from the senate of Rome, and he was an opponent of Arbogastes father Bauto. Theodosius was a follower of Ambrosius (and not the other way round). The fall of the pagan Arbogastes was surely a main "Triumph of the Chistians", and it was celebrated that way by Ambrosius and Theodosius. Arbogastes was the last pagan hope. After his fall pagan support in the Roman elite collapsed and in the next century a descendant of the staunch pagan Symmachus became Pope Symmachus! johanthon (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Johanthon, why are you addressing me. I know that and didn't question it. I merely replied to Sthalbach's statement that sounded very convinced but was the opposite of true, namely that Eugenius was a pagan. With "Advisors" I meant Arbogastes (who officially was only a subaltern of the Emperor, but de facto of course was "the man") and others. The remarks about the showdown were not mine. Str1977 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I was explaining the obvious? ;-) And partly adressed the wrong guy! Please, forgive me. I'm glad we agree. johanthon 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

needs improvement
Not sure what the source is, but I think this is poor. The first paragraph is very poor history, making assumptions about the status and character of the Senate in this period which are quite inaccurate. Moreover, there is debate among historians over may of the "facts" reported, but no sign of this in the text. And the English is often poor and there are editorial problems (why is paganism given a capital? it was not a single organised religion like Christianity or Islam). It needs a major rewrite. Deipnosophista 09:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Roman State Paganism was most certainly an organised religion; it had its own priestly colleges, set rituals, sacred dates and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong name
I think the river should be called Fluvius Frigidus (="Cold River"), not just Frigidus (="Cold"). There is another article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_of_Friuli mentioning the battles on the same location, where full name is quoted correctly. Another problem is that no historian today can be really sure which river is exactly in question, and the Fluvius Frigidus is usually referred as today's Vipava river. But Vipava is not so cold at all to deserve such name...my best guess is that the river Fluvius Frigidus is today's Hubelj river (which is really very very cold) - there was a Roman fortification on its riverbank to the north, called Castra (today's Ajdovščina), and a cold river that cuts the valley from there, where would you plan your defences? :)

Here is a picture of my best-guess battlefield: http://www.geopedia.si/#T105_vT_b2-3_x416335_y81579_s15 Hubelj runs North to South into Vipava, which runs West, and there is a bottleneck between hills, if you are coming with a huge army from East... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.124.243 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Last Pagans of Rome
Alan Cameron has published a new history book The Last Pagans of Rome (2010) that is being called a masterpiece and re-defining everything we thought we knew about the so-called pagan revival of the late 4th and earth 5th century. One of the book's principal theses is that there was never a pagan revival associated with the usurper Eugenius, who met his end at the Battle of the Frigidus. I have not read Cameron's book, but I think scholarship has moved beyond the current Wikipedia article, at least concerning the story that it was the last battle in a pagan revival. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Like anything in academia, there are always disagreements etc. Havinbg read it, I personally think Cameron's work is deplorable, conjecture after conjecture, gross omissions such as ignoring the private aspects of Roman paganism and focusing only on the city of Rome's nobles as he knows very well that on an empire wide basis there is ample evidence to demonstrate beyond doubt that paganism was not moribund and still thrived long after the Christian ascendancy. Scholars such as Hendrick and MacMullen would not agree with Cameron's view so I don't think this 'masterpiece' will redefine the study of this battle as much as many are asserting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.198.136 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Hedrick has dealt with Cameron's revisionism many times in the past (see his 2000 book History and Silence: The Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity.) Cameron's been bellowing this same story since the 1960's and this work is nothing new. Despite all his posturing, mainstream academia still adheres to the notion of a Pagan revival and will continue to do so because the sources are pretty clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to cite and explain the varying views of Cameron, Hendrick, and MacMullen and let the readers decide (or seek further information) for themselves.TheCormac (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The numbers!
Found a source for the numbers, just add it to references while I put it in the template box. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries, 115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Two comments
1. Wouldn't it make better sense to have the section "Aftermath" follow "The battle", rather than have "Modern interpretation" between them? The material in "Modern interpretation" feels as if it would fit better at the end of the article. 2. The German Wikipedia equivalent links to some authoritative articles. I suggest that anyone who wants to improve this article -- or at least add sources -- use those references. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)