Talk:Theodoric the Great

Untitled
Someone needs to mention his death. Interesting event...

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

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)

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

It is difficult to reconcile what is going on in this statement:''Subsequently, Byzantine Emperor Zeno gave him the title of Patrician and the office of Magister militum (master of the soldiers), and even appointed him as Roman Consul. Trying to achieve further aims, Theodoric frequently ravaged the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, eventually threatening Constantinople itself. In 488, Emperor Zeno ordered Theodoric to overthrow the German Foederati Odoacer, who had likewise been made patrician and even King of Italy, but had since betrayed Zeno, supporting the rebellious Leontius.'' How can he be an enemy yet subject to orders? Needs clarification.

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)

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.

Spunkiel 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly true- Yes, he was Arian, but the Liber Pontificalis and the Anonymus Valesianus both say he began to persecute Catholics in the later years of his reign (525/6) possibly in retaliation for persecution of un-orthodox christians in the Eastern Roman Empire by Justin I.

Moreover, regarding authority of the Pope, this almost certainly is not the case. Popes were involved- for example the letters of Cassiodorus (Variae), ed. S Barnish, mention tax evasion by the senate- pay taxes to the 'Vicar' if they wish. But senate playing a big part in government too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Is this important enough to be included? Spunkiel 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Heather (The Goths), Theodoric's deference to Constantinople -- the letter to Anastasius, etc., written after the Emperor's treaty with Clovis -- was all a pose. He was seeking recognition and legitimacy for personal and political purposes. It wasn't that he particularly "respected" Roman institutions; they were simply useful. He had already, during the struggle with Odoacer, threatened to withdraw testamentary powers from any Italian landowner who didn't actively support him -- an indication of what he could do if he felt like it. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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


 * "as all Germanic folk were"? Not true, not for all the Germanic peoples, and not all the time. Some went from non-Christian to Arian to Catholic, some went straight from non-Christian to Catholic, some never did convert but were defeated militarily. Missionary and political pressures were very different on the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, the Vandals, and the Anglo-Saxons. You can't generalize so glibly about "Germanics." (And please sign your posts, people. . . .) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

Other people used Augustus in reference to him, but he never actually used it himself. 144.32.126.12 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought it would be interesting to mention the Swedish runestone Rökstenen situated in Östergötland, since it may (or may not) mention Theodoric by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.162.87 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Portrait
The portrait of Theodoric on this page seems to be just a cropped version of a portrait of Justinian I. I propose the portrait be changed to the one in the Italian article on Theodoric. Any objections? WebDman (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Theodoric the Great to Theoderic the Great
Spelling of Theoderic should always be e, closer to original. Not sure how to swap redirect so it goes to the Theoderic page, not the Theodoric one. If in doubt, look at coin images in the article - they are all THEODERIC spelling. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brook41 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Though these are two separate names, obviously derived from the same source, the person in question is Theoderic. Some scholarly titles to show the fact:


 * Cambridge Ancient History, V.14 (2008)
 * Ed. Cameron, Perkins & Whitby
 * Chapter 19 Italy, by Mark Humphries
 * II. Odoacer and Theoderic (476–526) pp. 529-532


 * The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic
 * A. H. M. Jones
 * The Journal of Roman Studies
 * Vol. 52, Parts 1 and 2 (1962), pp. 126-130


 * Theoderic, king of the Goths
 * P Heather
 * Early Medieval Europe
 * Volume 4, Issue 2, pages 145–173, September 1995


 * Theoderic in Italy.
 * John Moorhead
 * Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992
 * ISBN: ISBN 0-19-814781-3


 * Administrative Shifts of Competence under Theoderic
 * William G. Sinnigen
 * Traditio
 * Vol. 21, (1965), pp. 456-467


 * Theoderic, the Goths, and the Restoration of the Roman Empire
 * Jonathan J Arnold
 * Dissertation, University of Michigan, 2008


 * Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great
 * A Study of the Edictum Theoderici
 * Sean D. W. Lafferty
 * Cambridge, 2013 (forthcoming)
 * ISBN: 9781107028340

Both the brick image and that of the weight in the article show that his name in Latin was Theodericus. The Greek form is similar. The problem seems to have arisen through older scholars using the form Theodoric, the name of various other figures, based on a different etymology, theo-doros, God's gift, rather than thiud-reiks, king of the people, or a mixture of the two. As the significant works cited above show, modern scholarship returns to the closest form in our alphabet to the original name.

I have
 * 1) moved the article to Theoderic the Great,
 * 2) changed the name in the article,
 * 3) renamed Template:Campaignbox Conquest of Italy by Theoderic the Great with associated articles (Isonzo & Verona),
 * 4) changed the name in the Antique Kings of Italy template,
 * 5) changed the name in Ostrogoths.

plus


 * 1) Ostrogothic Kingdom and Legends about Theoderic the Great

Just placed a note on the issue at the talk page WikiProject Middle Ages. --  spin |control 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The premise here is completely false. Theodoric is not a 19th Century mistake; it was used by the ancient historians and in contemporary Latin inscriptions. In Jordanes' history of the Goths, Theodoric and its variations occur about twenty-six times, while Theoderic and its variations occur sixteen times. The Roman inscriptions collected by Muratori include six examples apparently made during Theodoric's reign, of which half give Theoderic and half Theodoric. Although you've listed several articles, including a dissertation and an unpublished work, which prefer Theoderic, just as many modern sources prefer Theodoric, including Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths (1990).


 * I'm sure that just as impressive a list of works supporting the traditional spelling could be compiled given enough time and effort, but there really isn't any need for that, because the real issue here isn't how many works can be cited by each side. The traditional spelling has existed since Theodoric's day, and prevailed since that time; it's much more familiar and not demonstrably wrong. There needs to be a better reason for changing the title of an article, and hundreds or thousands of mentions in Wikipedia, from a common and long-accepted form of a well-known name, to a variation used chiefly in academic circles. P Aculeius (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For some reason you seem to think I claimed that it was a 19th century mistake, but you've misunderstood what I said here and on the talk page at the Wiki Classical project. It is the fact that 19th c. scholars used the form "Theodoric", which indicates modern scholars have to deal with an old form that doesn't best represent the original name, that is seen on artefacts of the era. In fact, it was the 19th c. scholars' interest in Theoderic which coincided with a publishing boom that has led to the proliferation of a less representative form, magnified further by the popularity of such out of print texts on internet.
 * That the text of Jordanes has both forms points to different scribes copying, each preferring one form, either because it is original or because of acquaintance (the other major alternative is that the author was using different sources, unlikely so close to the events). Muratori transcriptions from the 18th c. suffer from the same problem of seeing what one expects (or preferring one's preconceptions) rather than what was there. As a modern example, note the name of this Wiki image as compared to what the image shows.
 * There is nothing novel about the major scholars in the field preferring "Theoderic". Wiki works from reliable sources and these are the most reliable we have. --  spin |control 03:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "...going back to the errors of the 19th c." is your quote. And you just said that you were attributing the prevalence of Theodoric to the proliferation of 19th century scholarship. But I'm not aware of any scholarly source that actually says that. I also don't see any reason to attribute the familiarity of Theodoric to the proliferation of out-of-print texts on the internet; that's the form that almost everyone learnt in school and found in books up to very recently, and it's still used by many respectable sources. You haven't cited a single published source that actually says that the prevalence of Theodoric has anything to do with 19th century scholarship, or what's available on the internet; that makes it your original thesis, and that's not an acceptable basis to deviate from Wikipedia's basic policy of preferring the more common or familiar form of the name.


 * You're also ignoring the period inscriptions copied on the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome talk page; six Roman inscriptions from the reign of Theodoric the Great; half use Theoderic and half use Theodoric. What "best" represents the "original name" is a matter of opinion, not fact. There was no traditional spelling of the name, precisely because it was Germanic, rather than Greek or Latin. That's why several different spellings were used in antiquity, and it's why you can't simply declare that Theodoric, Theoderic, or Θευδεριχος is the most correct form; they're all essentially arbitrary attempts to spell the same thing, and all of them were used regularly in ancient sources.


 * It's your original assertion that the variant forms in Jordanes represents the merger of different manuscript sources; you don't have any evidence of that, and in fact it wouldn't make any sense to keep alternating between manuscripts, not just from one section to the other, but frequently on the same page. In the absence of any evidence that multiple manuscripts were stitched together to produce the irregular use of Theodoric versus Theoderic, one can only suppose that Jordanes himself simply couldn't decide which form to use. Consistent spelling was not a hallmark of the 6th Century. But even if you did suppose that multiple manuscripts were involved, you have no evidence that one version is any better or more correct than the other; at this point there's no logical basis for that conclusion. And in the absence of any basis by which to judge which form comes from better manuscripts, the fact that the number of occasions on which Theodoric is used is significantly greater than the number of times that Jordanes has Theoderic strongly argues against the premise that Theoderic is somehow preferable.


 * There's also no evidentiary basis for saying that Muratori copied his inscriptions wrongly; that's just a guess on your part to explain away evidence that disagrees with your premise. If the appearance of Theodoric in Muratori were due to his copying the inscriptions the way he wanted or expected them to read, then we would expect for them all to use that form of the name, instead of being half one way and half the other. The illustration you linked above isn't on point; it's a medieval picture, not contemporary with the period of Theodoric or his chroniclers; the title of the image file relates to the Gesta Theodorici, a 6th century work for which the illustration was produced in the 12th century. If the image relates to the history, then it makes perfect sense to give the file a name using the spelling of the history being used by the author of the article, rather than the spelling used by the illustrator six hundred years later. The illustration is valid as evidence that the spelling Theoderic was known in the 12th century, but it's not evidence that Theodoric was not in use, or that it hadn't been used or preferred centuries earlier.


 * You also haven't demonstrated that the sources you cited are more reliable than other sources of any date. Sources up to and including the present day continue to use Theodoric, and you haven't found any scholarly work that explains why one form should be preferred to the other. The only evidence we do have shows that both forms have been in use continuously since Theodoric's lifetime, and Theodoric seems to have become the prevailing form up to and including most of the 20th Century; barely a decade into the 21st it's still in use and there doesn't appear to be any basis for preferring Theoderic other than personal whim. That's not a valid reason to change the title of Theodoric's article on Wikipedia, much less the hundreds or thousands of other references to him in that and other articles; that's substituting your preference for that of every other author who chose the form with which they were most familiar. This move is inherently arbitrary and should be reversed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you suddenly decided after several responses were posted at the classics proj talk page you have come here and split the discussion. Although here was my original request, several responses were posted there. It is sufficient with Muratori to say that we don't have the inscriptions he refers to available, there is no way to tell that the forms found in his transcriptions match reality. We do know that from the time of Theoderic the Latin and Greek forms point to a most representative form being "Theoderic". And googlescholar "Gesta Theoderici" (including quotes) and compare the results with "Gesta Theodorici": you'll find results that are not convenient for you. As there are several responses over there, you should continue there. --  spin |control 05:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pity the discussion has split, but this is a good place for it after all. I am against moving the page back to its old name: its current name "Theoderic the Great" is more in accord with modern usage and it's better to retain it. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Death of Odoacer
The Wiki page on Theoderic states, "Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands." What evidence has changed the conclusion of one of Gibbon's editors, who said, " ... almost all the ancient historians of the event make Theodoric [sic] the instigator, not the perpetrator, of the deed."? Alpinehermit (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Dietrich?
Just curious. The translation of his name is the exact same as that of "Dietrich the Great" and his story is the same as well...12.22.31.66 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoderich_der_Gro%C3%9Fe. but Dietrich von Berne in a medieval lied apparently. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see there is a small blurb in this wiki. Not sure if it is new or been there a while. It seems that "Theoderic" is a Latinized version of "Dietrich". Perhaps this can be added in the opening passage for clarity? I will try to add it, but no one ever likes when I edit...12.22.31.66 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dietrich" is just the normal medieval and modern German development of the Germanic name forms cited at the beginning of the article. (The change th > d happened in the 9th century, eo > ie slightly later).--Pfold (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with Bulgars?
Didn't Theoderic fight against Bulgarians near Singidunum? Jotaro97 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Badenhausen
For some reason, Rolf Badenhausen's website claiming that the Thidrekssaga isn't about Theoderic the Great is linked in the references here. As it is completely irrelevant to this page, I'm removing it. The proper place for discussing whether to include this fringe view on Wikipedia is the talk page for Legends about Theoderic the Great.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Move back to Theodoric?
As this article was moved a while ago without discussion and under dubious premises to the spelling Theoderic, I was wondering whether consensus existed to move it back to Theodoric, which I believe is the more common name.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready to believe this, but can you do an n-gram? There was a lengthy discussion, which people should look at, in 2012/13 - above at Talk:Theoderic_the_Great. I notice that the iw links for Romance languages tend to be "o", and the Germanic "e". Library of Congress goes "o".  Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ngram shows a clear preferrence for Theodoric over Theoderic by itself, as well as for Theodoric the Great over Theoderic the Great.
 * And yes, I think the other Germanic languages tend to adopt the -ric names more to native forms, hence we get Theoderich with -ch instead of c even in German. -oric is closer to the classical Latin spelling as far as I'm aware.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , , , . Thoughts?
 * I'd also note that Theodoric agrees with our article Theodoric.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Completely disregarding my overly-lengthy comments in the previous discussion, I believe that Theodoric is the established and still more usual form, even though Theoderic is also acceptable. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mild support. I was against this move back then, but the ngram helps to change my mind. I agree, "Theodoric" is closer to the preferred Latin spelling, and Latin has its importance in the medieval context. Andrew Dalby 14:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. "Theodoric" is the older form and the one contemporary with its bearer. But no one seems to care much apart from us! --Pfold (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per all above - I note the long-winded editor from last time has left us. Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Concur with the change closer to Latin, as noted by Dr. Dalby and Dr. Ermenrich. It also follows the English rendering from the eminent scholar of ancient Germany, Dr. Herwig Wolfram.--Obenritter (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the move. I've also move (or had moved) Legends about Theodoric the Great, Palace of Theodoric, and Mausoleum of Theodoric. I tried to change all non-quotation mentions of "Theoderic" here, in Ravenna, Ostrogothic Kingdom, the battles listed in the Campaigns box, and Legends about Theodoric the Great.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This was a rather poorly represented move of the article from the best represent form from ancient times & the most accepted modern scholarly form to an antiquated form of the name (see some of the great 20th c. scholars mentioned in the previous move). It should never have been moved back. The justifications given are paltry and the move has so little support. There was no scholarly justification for this change.
 * Someone complains about over-lengthy comments and asserts a belief. Fail.
 * The claim that "Theodoric" is closer to the preferred Latin spelling does not accord with the even split of ancient inscriptions.
 * The claim that "Theodoric" is the older form does not represent reality, given that the Greek supports "Theoderic", the Latin inscriptions don't support the claim and the reconstructed form of the Germanic name also supports "Theoderic". Add that the later German form Dietrich supports the fact that the second vowel was weak & got lost, not an "o".

Here are some scholarly articles that use "Theoderic" in their titles:


 * The palace of Theoderic at Ravenna: A new analysis of the complex. - Augenti, Andrea (Late Antique Archaeology, 2007)


 * The Mausoleum of Theoderic and the Seven Wonders of the World. - Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf (Journal of Late Antiquity, 2010, Volume 3, Issue 2)


 * Cassiodorus and Theoderic: A vision of reviving falling cities. - Wohl, Birgitta Lindros (Presenting the Past, 2010 (Conference Proceeding))


 * Italy in the Twilight of the Empire: The Decline of Roman Law and Culture under Theoderic the Great (c. 493-526) - Lafferty, Sean D.W (Canadian Journal of History, 12/2010, Volume 45, Issue 3)


 * Law and order in the age of Theoderic the Great (c.493–526) - LAFFERTY, SEAN (Early Medieval Europe, 08/2012, Volume 20, Issue 3)


 * World Monarchies and Dynasties, 2013, Theoderic the Great (ca. 454–526 C.E.) -


 * Theoderic's Invincible Mustache. - Arnold, Jonathan J (Journal of Late Antiquity, 2013, Volume 6, Issue 1)


 * The Legacy of Theoderic. - Marios Costambeys (The Journal of Roman Studies, 01/2016)


 * Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration (Review of J.J. Arnold) Kennell, Stefanie A. H (Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies, 07/2017)


 * Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum Theoderici - Brown, T.S (The English Historical Review, 12/2017)


 * Theoderic goes to the promised land: accidental propaganda in Jordanes's Gothic history - Wilkinson, Ryan (Early Medieval Europe, 08/2018, Volume 26, Issue 3)


 * Network Management in Ostrogothic Italy. Theoderic the Great and the Refusal of Sectarian Conflict - Christian Nitschke (Journal of Historical Network Research, 05/2020, Volume 4)

Challenge: find some articles written by historians in peer reviewed journals in the last twenty years that use "Theodoric".

 spin |control 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, look at the ngram dude, wp:COMMONNAME. This has been decided. Let it go.
 * Also: "Theodoric the Great" in peer reviewed journals of the last twenty years:, , , , , , , . Oh, and here's one in Speculum (journal), the best medieval journal: . This is just what I could find through a quick search on Jstor, which obviously has a limited selection of journals. In fact, searching "Theoderic the Great" there only gets 69 results , while "Theodoric the Great" gets 165 .--Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I asked specifically for [1] history articles with "Theodoric" in the [2] title in the [3] last 20 years. Only one of your links worked for me, the first, and it did not have "Theodoric" in the title. I specifically asked for it in the title, so it would be easier for everyone. I cited 12 separate pieces with "Theoderic" in the title. Try a search with the name in the title under the history category and you may find there aren't very many at all. The university search I used didn't come up with any peer reviewed articles with "Theodoric" in the title, except one miscatalogued that showed "Theoderic" in the title.

Have you seen a coin with the name "Theodoric" engraved on it. I searched Google for "Theodoric coins" and all that came up were a few with the name "Theoderic" inscribed.

Both Isidore of Seville ("Theudericus") and Jordanes ("Theodericus") used the "e".

There were several people with the name Theoderic/Theodoric and this Theoderic/Theodoric is not necessarily called "the Great" in literature. How relevant is your ngram? (The link you provided had nothing about an ngram for Theodoric.)

I think it's clear that his name in Greek and Latin (via the coins and early writers) has the "e'.

 spin |control 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See . And please stop with the wp:walloftext and wp:indent your replies. None of your verbose arguments has addressed the fact that Theodoric the Great is demonstrably the more common form of the name, and I've linked you to a series of articles that use that form in the body already. It is not up to us to determine which name is "more correct" based on the original Gothic.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove all the non-peer reviewed dictionaries & encyclopaedias, take out Abbot Theodoric, Master Theodoric, Theodoric of York and all the other irrelevant entries and what are you left with?? You're not helping your case with that jumble. (And epigraphy, of the 21 items in Paola Guerrini's repertoire of inscriptions after removing four that are too lacunose, there are three with Theodoric and the rest are Theoderic.)  spin |control 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot decide how to write a name in English based on how it was written in Latin. You appear perfectly capable of clicking the links I sent, but if you need me to spell it out for you:, . Also things like Festschriften, and Encyclopedia Entries are perfectly acceptable sources. I've already pointed you to use of the Theodoric spelling even in Speculum (journal). Here it is in Herwig Wolfram , and again , in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity , The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila , Hyun Jin Kim . This is all in addition to the ngrams I posted back in July of last year showing that Theodoric is the more common spelling for both the name alone and in the combination Theodoric the Great , . In short, you're relying on your own preference for the spelling Theoderic and have explained why you like it more at great length, but it doesn't really have anything to do with us here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just to say it another way, for this particular question the most important sources to cite would be modern English language secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Argumentum ab Speculo fails, as Speculum has no problem with "Theoderic" (I cited a review from its pages above). But we certainly can decide how a name is written based on the best sources. When significant sources such as A.H.M. Jones or the Cambridge Ancient History opt for "Theoderic" they are showing scholarly leadership by actively opposing the errors of the past. Non-scholarly sources will repeat the mistakes of the past, for want of better knowledge. Scholars seem to be moving to the best form of the name based on earliest sources.


 * Thanks for the ngram data. The ngrams show that the name usage is changing: Theodoric has rapidly decreased. To get a more accurate perspective, you'd need to weed out the non-scholarly works. The data stops at July 1, 2012, so not helpful for today. Besides, the ngram is not based on peer reviewed scholarship, but book publications. It's a very blunt instrument.


 * The origin of "Theodoric" may simply be a confusion in antiquity between Theodorus and Theodericus, as it is evident the earliest form of the name had the "e" in Latin and Greek. I don't understand the desire to perpetuate the error.  spin |control 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that Speculum has used either name is not reason to say that we have to use the one you want to use. Wikipedia works on the principle of wp:Commonname, as I've referenced several times before. The second ngram with "Theodoric the Great" shows no sign of decreasing relative to "Theoderic the Great," which is also decreasing. There's certainly no evidence that it's overtaking the spelling with "o". The origin of that spelling is completely irrelevant for this Wikipedia article, there's no reason to keep bringing up that you think it isn't the original spelling.
 * You also have shown no evidence that anyone is "correcting the errors of the past" by using the spelling with "e". Even if they did say they were doing that, that might warrant mention on the page, but it isn't an argument against common usage. What we have here is two possible spellings, with the "o" spelling more common. That's all there is to say.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reference to Speculum's usage was simply irrelevant and that's what I indicated. You here demonstrate that scholarship is not the basis for your opinion. I can't argue with that. I bow to the backfire effect.  spin |control 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not meant to be decisive, but I decided to look at books I have at hand from recent work on WP. Wolfram never writes in English, and uses Theoderich in German. Heather, Halsall and Goffart who all sold a lot of books about the period in recent decades all use "e". These discussions can of course go around in circles because there is no single rule, but it strikes me as interesting to look more at the sources such as we would actually use the most in the article under discussion. Looking at the most used items in our bibliography and not counting the authors already mentioned, Burns (1991) uses "o", Johnson uses "e", Heydemann uses "e". Just based on Google books, Patrick Geary seems to use both spellings? Liebeschuetz uses "e". Edward James also seems to use both.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're really going to have this discussion again, I'll ping everyone who was involved before . I'll note that, while there were a few mild supports, everyone in the last discussion supported the move.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT Keeping "Theodoric the Great" (with the O not the E) as the naming convention given the vast reasons provided by Dr. Ermenrich, principally scholarly preponderance from the most recognizable publications like Cambridge and Oxford University. Contemporaneous language conventions from antiquity do not prove anything in terms of how we should express a name nowadays. Just because something was accepted at one time and place, does not dictate modern usage. If such logic were the case (as Doktorspin argues), since all Germans called Hitler "der Führer" between 1933 through 1945 and official documents and coins referred to him this way, then we should all be using that convention in present day. Sorry, not gonna fly. The same holds true for our illustrious king of the Ostrogoths.--Obenritter (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "If such logic were the case (as Doktorspin argues), since all Germans called Hitler "der Führer" between 1933 through 1945 and official documents and coins referred to him this way, then we should all be using that convention in present day." This is such a contorted misrepresentation of what I have said, I have no idea how you came to it, so inappropriate for the era concerned, but then comparisons with Hitler usually are. The great Cambridge Ancient History uses "Theoderic" throughout the relevant volume. The contributors to Jonathan J. Arnold's Brill Companion to Ostrogothic Italy, ie many top scholars in the field, use "Theoderic" 1223 times.  spin |control 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a tad too reductionist and a poor choice in terms of context. My point was, nonetheless, that naming conventions have limited basis in contemporary usage for a host of reasons, as you likely know. What we are actually arguing about—a seeming waste of valuable time and intellectual power considering the participant crowd—is whether we want to use the Latin or Greek derivative of the name. This is a silly argument, especially in light of the fact that the alternate spelling in either case, directs the reader to the same page with the same information. Let's spend our time more usefully, shall we?.--Obenritter (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that dealing with the spelling of this name is a waste of valuable time, why did you waste that valuable time earlier advocating for a spelling change? You said, "Concur with the change closer to Latin, as noted by Dr. Dalby and Dr. Ermenrich." The best Latin sources from the era show that the name was "Theodericus", as shown in the epigraphy and Brickstamps, as well as Isidore of Seville & Jordanes, and derived along the same reasoning as Frederick and Roderick. His father was Theodemir. There is no doubt as to the best form from antiquity. At the same time the most eminent scholars in the field from A.H.M. Jones to Jonathan J. Arnold prefer "Theoderic". Best mediaeval sources & most prominent modern scholars in the field. That should be sufficient. It's common to find writers not in a field not using up-to-date scholarship in naming practices. Rehearsing bad habits should not shape our choice.  spin |control 23:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gibbon states that Alaric was his father in Chapter 35 footnote. Where is the cite for Theodemir? 47.19.145.26 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * wrong theodoric, bro 47.19.145.26 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You might check the various sources in the Dictionary of Medieval Names from European Sources to see how they represent the name.  spin |control 23:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Folks, the more I look into this, the more it appears that modern sources are using the rendering "Theoderic" so I am becoming conflicted. Nonetheless, I yielded previously to the Latin version based on Dr. Wolfram's translated works, but now that I am digging deeper into the most recent scholarly literature, the trend is towards the "e" spelling convention. However, consensus is consensus.--Obenritter (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a bit late to this party, but support Theoderic over Theodoric. Not only is it etymologically more sound, but, more significantly, it is more common in recent scholarship in my experience; e.g. most recently Arnolds' work (2014) on the so-called imperial restoration under Theoderic, and Brill's 2016 Companion to Ostrogothic Italy featuring contributions from leading current scholars in the field similarly exclusively uses Theoderic. Feel free to tag me if it comes to a vote. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What we have here is a war over which of two contemporaneous spellings is correct and which is wrong, and the main evidence being cited is a count of the number of contemporary books and scholarly articles using each spelling. But as several people have pointed out, both spellings were used in antiquity; the current spelling (with an 'o') came to be preferred in Latin writers, and for this reason until recently was the clear favourite in scholarly sources.  Recently scholars have been jumping on the bandwagon of the 'e' spelling, which may or may not signal a long-term trend, or merely a scholarly fad.  Neither side in this discussion is appealing to etymology, which seems a little bit odd, since etymologically old Germanic protothemes generally take an '-o' or '-u' stem when joining to deuterothemes; the '-e' stem seems to be a later development.  Our article on "Theodoric" as a name presents it as an '-o' stem.
 * Early in this discussion, WP:COMMONNAME was invoked, with an Ngram showing that "Theodoric" remains the preferred spelling, whether entered alone or with "the Great" attached. That seems to have gotten lost in the source counting.  But I thought I'd see if Wikipedia article pageviews could help: "Theodoric", a page about the name, received about 43 daily page views over the last 90 days.  Some of those must have been due to links in other articles, but probably not more than half—the most likely way for anyone to wind up on a page about a name is to type the name into the search window.  "Theoderic" can also be searched for, although it redirects to "Theodoric".  It received an average of 2 daily page views over the last 90 days.  In other words, Wikipedia users are much more likely to search under "Theodoric" in the first place, precisely because it's by far the more familiar spelling.  People expect the name to be spelled as it currently is; a census of trending uses in recent scholarly literature doesn't show that general use has changed.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The o-stem theory to confirm the "o" being in the original form of the name does not convince. Theoderic's father was Theodemir. His daughter was Theodegotha. No manifested "o" in either though the same prototheme is evinced all three names. For the same deuterotheme the Latin of 4th c. Ammianus Marcellinus 31.3 has preserved "Munderichus" (.5) [*munda-reiks?] and "Viderichus" (.3)/"Vithericus" (31.4.12) [*vita-reiks?]. No sign of an "o". Another king was Gaisericus, a name given by D. Gary Miller (The Oxford Gothic Grammar) as derived from *gaiza-reiks . Miller also supplies *Þiudareiks as the hypothetical original of Theoderic . The o-stem theory doesn't explain any of these names.
 * If we consider as many here do that Theodoric is the lectio facilior, how does anyone explain the fact that the most used contemporary form of the name was Theoderic? This name must be considered the lectio difficilior, thus requiring explanation. If we start with Theoderic, interference from the more common Theodore could account for the few variants. Why is the lectio facilior so poorly represented? The simplest response is that Theodoric doesn't reflect the name. This etymological idea seems to fail. The earliest form of the name is predominantly Theodericus as per Guerrini's epigraphic repertoire. Top modern scholarship now mostly uses Theoderic. I don't see why the apparently errant form "Theodoric" is given validity here today.  spin |control 08:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not feeling or seeing any war here. But I do find this explanation a bit strange, and I don't see any reason to shout discussions like this down. I think WP policy is clearly telling us not to ignore scholarly trends.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "shout it down", but I do see this as a case of hypercorrection leading to endless debates recurring over and over, in which the same sides go around and around in circles, each one trying to prove that the other is wrong, and convincing no-one. There is no objective truth as to whether one spelling is correct; it's a matter of opinion for which the underlying facts (inscriptions, etymology, historical usage, Greek vs. Latin rendering of a Germanic name) have not changed, and are unlikely ever to change.  And this is the third time the same arguments have been raised for the same purpose since I've been involved, with the article becoming a metaphorical ping-pong ball, and it's a little tiresome.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seems like I am equivocating here, but I just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing from an academic perspective. Either spelling is actually OK with me in the end, but as and  have mentioned, the literature is leaning a certain way these days. Even if we keep it as is, the discussion is not meant to ruffle anyone's feathers. If it did, my apologies. --Obenritter (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I used Google Scholar to search titles of scholarly articles since 2000 mentioning "Theoderic the Great" and "Theodoric the Great" . The first drew 13 hits, the second two. Of those two, one was a review of Sean Lafferty's Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great. A Study of the Edictum Theoderici.. The other was an abstract by Walter Pohl, whose article in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila uses "Theoderic" throughout.
 * Just discovered this title search without time restriction gives 34 hits for "Theoderic the Great", while Theodoric  gives 26.  spin |control 23:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am finding it hard to feel strongly about any of this, and can't quite grok the background to this discussion, but according to WP:COMMONNAME some of the sources named above seem relevant at least. FYI, I notice the 2012 Oxford Classical Dictionary and 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity both use "e". There are working links to both on our Goths article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Leave it where it is. We had a very long discussion about this before, and once we'd reached a decision we stopped beating the drums.  A few years later we took it up again, and managed in a much more concise and very civil discussion to reach a true consensus, not about whether one name was right and the other was wrong, but which we should use as the title and primary form in the article text.  This argument is a zombie arising from the grave, to no-one's advantage.  Spincontrol's argument boils down to every point and every opinion that leads to the current result is not merely wrong, but should be ignored.  That's not going to help us arrive at a consensus.  I've said what I thought the result should be and why—multiple times—and I'm not going to spend hours trying to rebut a lot of minute points.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You mentioned elsewhere "(inscriptions, etymology, historical usage, Greek vs. Latin rendering of a Germanic name)".
 * 1. Paola Guerrini's recent repertoire of inscriptions predominantly supports "Theoderic".
 * 2. The etymology you suggested doesn't seem to reflect the evidence. There is no recourse to the o-stem when the nominative Þiuda is the prototheme. All analogous names feature the "e" in Latin. No explanation—assuming for a moment Theodoric—has been proferred for an abundant use of the lectio difficilior "e" at the time.
 * 3. The usage of the name early is generally with the "e".
 * 4. The Greek reflects the earliest Latin which features the "e".
 * Today's scholars in the field are opting for Theoderic. I know it's normal to stick to one's guns in an argument, but I don't think yours are loaded.  spin |control 05:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating the same arguments ad nauseam and claiming, rather dismissively, that everything else anyone has said is wrong, and that their opinions can therefore be ignored. This is not going to change people's minds.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person using the word wrong here is you. Your etymological argument was presented in this discussion. The Guerrini epigraphy article is also new in this discussion. Your assertion of "same arguments ad nauseam" doesn't hold water.  spin |control 15:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Leave it where it is per P Aculeius.  Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal to close discussion. This has gone on long enough. There is no consensus to move and this discussion is just going on and on with the same arguments.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AGREE: Close Discussion Either spelling/rendering directs the reader to the same page and the average Wiki-User will likely not even notice or will not have the requisite linguistic etymological knowledge to differentiate anyway.--Obenritter (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree to close. Pretty much what I was saying before.  Don't make me post another horse!  P Aculeius (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that we've come to this. People who insisted on moving the article back to "Theodoric" now say that the spelling doesn't really matter.
 * The only real claim for the "o" is based on the dubious use of an unanalysed ngram. Talk about dubious premises.  spin |control 01:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Roman Empire vs. Byzantine Empire in lead
, your change has produced a nonsensical sentence:

Theodoric the Great (454 – 30 August 526), also spelled Theoderic or called Theodoric the Amal (Flāvius Theodoricus, Θευδέριχος, Theuderikhos), was king of the Ostrogoths (471–526), and ruler of the independent Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy between 493–526, regent of the Visigoths (511–526), and a patrician of the Roman Empire.

Theodoric was decided not a patrician of the "Byzantine Empire", as it had only nominal control over Italy at the time and the notion that the "Byzantine Empire" existed in the late Roman period is itself a contradiction: the term Byzantine Empire only refers to the period after the end of the Late Roman Period. I'd also like to remind you that according to wp:BRD it is incumbent on you to discuss your edit in talk if it's reverted, not re-revert.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If it is the case that he was a Patrician of the (Western) Roman Empire before its fall, then the link should just be to the Roman Empire, not a link that says "Roman Empire" and actually links to the "Byzantine Empire".


 * I do not understand the justification for having a link which reads "Roman Empire" but redirects to the "Byzantine Empire". It should either be (A) a link that reads Roman Empire and directs to the Roman Empire page, or (B) a link that reads Byzantine Empire and directs to the Byzantine Empire page. I am uncertain which of the two is correct, but I am certain that it is unnecessarily confusing to write one empire and link to the other. Thank you for your assistance in clarifying this page. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Further, please note that the very next paragraph refers to "Byzantine Emperor Zeno" and refers to Theodoric's "Byzantine education". So if it is incorrect to refer to it as the Byzantine Empire in the first paragraph, it is also wrong in the second paragraph (and in the rest of the article). Ikjbagl (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , this sounds like a larger problem with consistent terminology. ,do you have any ideas as the last person to engage extensively with this topic?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts: 1) Byzantine Empire is often used interchangeably with Eastern Roman Empire in this time period; 2) Italy is not considered part of the Byzantine Empire until the conquests of Justinian; 3) when Theodoric was made a Patrician (or claimed the title for himself, I don't know) this was not unlike the similar action by other Barbarian kings in the West who would not in any sense be seen as part of the Byzantine Empire. I would therefore link Roman Empire in this instance with Late Roman Empire. I would also consider changing other references to the Byzantine Empire to "Eastern Roman Empire".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * there is a lack of consistency with respect to when the term Byzantine became fitting to use, due in large part to the fact that some trace this back to Constantine, who as you know, after he became the sole Roman Emperor, moved the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD—contemporaneously called Byzantium. Some historians see this point forward as when the Byzantine expression is appropriate. It is certainly debatable and for the sake of consistency, we could just change all such references to say Eastern Roman Empire/Emperor.--Obenritter (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Zeno (emperor) is the emperor who made Theodoric a patrician. I think the answer should therefore depend on whether we consider Zeno a "Roman" or "Byzantine" emperor, which is difficult because Zeno was emperor during a transition period.
 * • It seems like Zeno made Theodoric a patrician/consul in order to legitimize Theodoric's rule over Italy and give some sort of imprimatur during a time when Zeno no longer had any formal/actual control over Italy.

• The House of Leo page alternatively describes the emperors of that House with "the Leonid Dynasty ruled the Eastern Roman Empire" and "List of Leonid rulers of the Byzantine Empire".

• The Zeno page describes Zeno as an Eastern Roman Emperor, but Zeno is also included in the List of Byzantine emperors, as are several emperors before him (but also see: Justinian I is first described on his page as being the Eastern Roman Emperor, despite him clearly (imo) being in the Byzantine period).

• Emperors of the Eastern Empire were only rulers or co-rulers of the entire Roman Empire until 395, which was before the time of Zeno, so Zeno couldn't claim to be the sole "Roman Emperor" until the Western Empire fell.

• Zeno was born, lived, and died in what is modern day Turkey, not near Italy.
 * I think, balancing those facts, that Zeno is probably more "Byzantine" than "Roman". Ikjbagl (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Zeno lived during the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire and was Emperor during that time. However, the difference between Eastern Roman and Byzantine had to do with the culture of the empire and how it had changed from 476. So, it would not be incorrect to label Zeno as the Eastern Roman Emperor as opposed to Byzantine. The Western Empire had just fallen and there had been no significant cultural changes in the East to suggest a change to calling it "Byzantine Empire". Yet, you will find numerous historians referring to Zeno as a Byzantine Emperor(post 476). So, considering we are dealing with the time period around 476, I would say either Eastern Roman or Byzantine would be acceptable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've posted about this at wp:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to elicit some more opinions.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Rides in on Caesar's horse and goes, "hmmm..." My first thought is that Theodoric would certainly not have considered himself a patrician of the Byzantine Empire, since he sought to legitimize himself as the ruler of (part of) the Western Empire, and could not make a similar claim to the East.  To the extent he may have been educated in the east, I suppose you could still say that he had a Byzantine education, because "Byzantium" was still somewhat synonymous with the east or with Constantinopolis in particular—but the Eastern Empire was still very much in the mindset that it was still in some sort of cultural unity with the West, and I don't think that they would have accepted being labeled anything other than Roman until a later period—indeed, to the end of the Empire they still had some notion of being Roman.  But in Theodoric's time they were still clinging to the hopes of re-establishing the Western Empire on a Roman model.  So it makes much more sense to me to call him a Roman patrician than a Byzantine one.  I don't know just when to draw the line in the East, but certainly not this early, and Theodoric was trying to establish himself as a ruler of the West.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there is any evidence Theoderic had plans for the west yet. The event was a thoroughly eastern affair, and concerning the western empire, the last emperor resident in Italy was killed in 476, about the same time as Th. was declared a patricius. (I am working on this period right now on the Ostrogoths article. Technically Julius Nepos would have still been called Western Emperor though, so it is not clear that we should say the Western Empire had ended. Concerning the terminology I personally think it is easier to avoid the term Byzantine, because of all the baggage, and just write "Eastern Roman". That is also typically what historians do for this period.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons to use "Byzantine Empire" over "Eastern Roman Empire" is to emphasize the cultural distance between that polity & the rest of Europe. At this point in time, Constantinople still exerted some authority over Western Europe; a perceptive Emperor could exert influence by awarding an empty title to a Frankish, English, or Gothic king. But as time progressed, this authority faded; the West & Constantinople drifted apart politically & culturally. By the time the Pope sought Charlemagne's help against the Lombards around 700, the rift had become visible; when the Western & Eastern churches excommunicated each other in the 11th century, it had become final, & IMHO from this point on it is more accurate to speak of a "Byzantine Empire" rather than an "Eastern Roman Empire", even when not in relationship with the West. So I would feel that here we should talk about Theodoric's relationship with the Eastern Roman Empire, not the Byzantine. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's the slightest evidence for any such influence being exerted on England by Constantinople during Theoderic's lifetime, or after. The Byzantine silver from Sutton Hoo doesn't amount to that.  The Franks are a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The example from Anglo-Saxon times actually date after Theoderic: allegedly one of the 7th century Northumbrian kings was awarded a title by the Emperor in Constantinople, & as a result would march into battle with a Late-Roman standard he was awarded. (Note: I'm having trouble tracking the reference down. I have read in a secondary source that Bede mentions it in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, but I've been unable to find the passage at the moment. You're welcome to disbelieve me -- I would in your position.) On the other hand, I can more easily provide evidence of this between the Burgundian kingdom of circa 600 & Constantinople. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt you're right (though I've never heard of it), but that suggests about as much "influence" as the papal award of Defender of the Faith gave the pope on Henry VIII (or indeed the other papal titles of the same period "most Christian/Catholic king" etc). I said the Franks were different. Anyway, this is all a digression. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OTOH, does any of this have anything to do with the period of Theoderic the Great? I tend to think that the term Byzantine implies a later period.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote Proposal
Dear users:, , , , , , , and :

Thank you for your discussion on this topic. The discussion seems to have fizzled out at this point, and it doesn't feel like either side has a sweepingly strong case, so a vote seems natural. At this point, the options seem to be ROMAN or BYZANTINE. Please vote below:


 * I don't know / soft Byzantine -- for the reasons stated above. This is one of the most on-the-line cases for trying to divide the "Roman" and "Byzantine" empires, so both sides have a strong case. Because: Zeno granted patrician status to Theodoric in order to legitimize control over a region (Rome) he no longer held, because Zeno was the first independent Byzantine emperor without any "Roman" counterpart, and because Zeno lived in modern day Turkey his whole life, I am picking Byzantine. Again, reasonable minds could disagree on this. Ikjbagl (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also open to different proposals, but most against "Byzantine" because I feel that word has baggage and most useful in much later periods. Perhaps my preferred option is NOTHING. We already have a decent explanatory wikilink for the word "patrician", and it is indeed a "grey zone" period. If others all prefer Byzantine, I would encourage consideration of "East Roman" or similar as a possible compromise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can come to a compromise by saying "a patrician of Zeno's empire"? That way we can leave the rest of the article alone with its other alternate Byzantine and Roman references. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that leads the reader to more questions? I was say the simplest name for his empire was just the Roman Empire. In any case, whatever people have about the name of that empire, being a patrician was a type of status and I think no one doubts or doubted his ability to give that status. I don't think there were western and eastern versions for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus to put East Roman; I will change the article accordingly. Thank you to all who participated. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Byzantine, at least in relation to the title Patrician. I’m less against it to refer to the East Roman Empire itself, although I also do not favor it here for this early time period.—Ermenrich (talk)
 * Prefer Eastern Roman for the above mentioned reasons as well. While either could be considered technically correct, the term Byzantine is more frequently employed a century or two later. --Obenritter (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Roman. Byzantine suggests a different time period and different cultural background—while they share a continuity, they're viewed very differently by the public and, to a lesser extent, by many scholars. This is much too early to distinguish Byzantine as meaning something other than Roman.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Roman, with a preference to Eastern Roman. As I noted above, "Byzantine" implies an isolation from the West that was not yet in evidence. -- llywrch (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Roman/Eastern Roman, nothing had changed culturally in the East after 476.

"King of the Visigoths"
The infobox and some parts of the text currently claim that Theodoric was King of the Visigoths. However other parts of the text say he was regent for his grandson Athalaric, and this is backed up by reliable sources such as Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, pp. 288-289:

We should probably remove the claim that he was "King of the Visigoths". Athalaric was king, even if a child.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Was Theodoric a Western Emperor ?
Dear users:, , , , , , , and :

I wrote the following subsection, not knowing there was a discussion page (I am not that familiar with editing policies). It is based on the work a one scholar (Jonathan J. Arnold), but stems from a multitude of sources contemporary of Theodoric and from the Italian nobility (Cassiodorus, Ennodus, Anonymus Valensis), while most of the modern image we have from Theodoric stems from "Byzantine" writers during the Gothic war.

Thus I think, while branding Theodoric as a fully fledged Western Emperor may surely be too much, the abondance of antic sources about his tenure as princeps of a western Res Publica and all the associated symbols deserve a mention, to give the reader a proper understanding of the ambiguitee of its position, at the frontier between barbarian and roman.

What are your thoughts ?

In the meantime, I will try to find additional modern sources to solidify the subsection. The works of Norman Cantor which are brought up above in this page seems to go in that direction.

--



The Byzantine historian and chronicler Procopius in The Gothic War, while accompanying Belisarius during his campaign in Italy, makes an unequivocal praise which probably shows the consideration which he enjoyed in the eyes of his Italian subjects :

"« And though he did not claim the right to assume either the garb or the name of emperor of the Romans, but was called 'rex' to the end of his life (for thus the barbarians are accustomed to call their leaders),​ still, in governing his own subjects, he invested himself with all the qualities which appropriately belong to one who is by birth an emperor. For he was exceedingly careful to observe justice, he preserved the laws on a sure basis, he protected the land and kept it safe from the barbarians dwelling round about, and attained the highest possible degree of wisdom and manliness. And he himself committed scarcely a single act of injustice against his subjects, nor would he brook such conduct on the part of anyone else who attempted it, except, indeed, that the Goths distributed among themselves the portion of the lands which Odoacer had given to his own partisans. And although in name Theoderic was a usurper, yet in fact he was as truly an emperor as any who have distinguished themselves in this office from the beginning; and love for him among both Goths and Italians grew to be great, and that too contrary to the ordinary habits of men. For in all states men's preferences are divergent, with the result that the government in power pleases for the moment only those with whom its acts find favour, but offends those whose judgment it violates. But Theoderic reigned for thirty-seven years, and when he died, he had not only made himself an object of terror to all his enemies, but he also left to his subjects a keen sense of bereavement at his loss. And he died in the following manner. »"

This testimony doesn't leave much doubt on the nature of Theodoric's reign. While having all the qualities of a Roman Emperor, he was not and reigned as an usurper. However, it must be taken cautiously. It is made by an Anatolian aristocrat of Greek culture who had been dispatched to Italy as part of Emperor Justinian's forces sent against the Goths. In order to gain a more precise idea of what were thinking the Italian populations during Theodoric's rule, one must look at more contemporary and local sources, such as Magnus Felix Ennodius's Vita beatissimi viri Epiphani episcopi Ticinensis ecclesiae, Cassiodorus's Variae and Laudes or the Pars Posterior of the Anonymus Valesianus.

According to scholar Jonathan J. Arnold, these sources shed a new light on Theodoric's rule, and lead to the conclusion that he was indeed viewed both by the local Italian nobility and the Eastern court as a Western Roman Emperor, although some adjustments were necessary for it to be accepted.

These sources state that it was customary for Thedororic's kingdom to be referred to as his Res Publica, similar in every regard to (but not included) the one in the East. The only paradigm in which a second Res Publica, accepted by Constantinople, exists is if it is indeed the western part of the Roman Empire. Theodoric, however, takes great care to avoid using other names such as Imperium or Basileía, even if by the VIth century, these were perfectly interchangeable. Likewise, Theodoric is titled, especially after 497, almost systematically as Princeps, which is the original title of emperors, before Imperator or Augustus prevailed but which he avoided. This restraint and use of anachronistic terms is quite clever on the part of Theodoric. It clearly states that he views himself as an emperor and was recognized as such both in Rome and Constantinople. But it also spares the pride of the East by asserting their seniority (but not superiority) while giving the italian nobility an emperor seemingly respectful of the old republican traditions of the principat, different from the more recent king-like emperors. Moreover, these sources fail to mention the date of 476 as being of any sort of relevance apart from Odovacer replacing Orestes as Magister Militum and failing to appoint a new emperor out of convenience. For them, the position was just vacant and waiting to be filled, as it had sometimes been for years in a recent past (2 years between Libius Severus and Anthemius), but it did not meant that the Western Empire as an institution was no more. And the arrival of Theodoric, a suitable candidate (as justified below), filled that position just fine.

This reality of imperial rule is attested by other elements :
 * The production, albeit rare, of coins featuring Theodoric with the mention of his Princeps title.
 * His extensive use of imperial regalia sent back by Anastasius I Dicorus, such as purple togas, the imperial diadem and brooch. We may actually have a depiction of Theodoric in such clothing in a mosaic found in the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo. It has been wrongly attributed to Justinian but most probably depict the Ostrogoth king, although Anastasius or Justin I are also considered.
 * The non-existence of a Gothic law, unlike what the Franks, Burgundians or Wisigoths had done in Spain or Gaul. On the contrary, Theodoric imposed the full extent of the Roman law to his Gothic people in place of their customs, and strongly encouraged an italian aristocracy, by now accustomed to skirt it, to follow it as well.
 * His capacity to name consuls recognized in the East, an imperial power by essence.
 * His promotion of evergetism, as shown by his extensive building program aimed at preserving the antic wonders.
 * The latinisation of his name with an imperial cognomen, Flavius Theodoricus.
 * The insistence with which he presented his conquest in Gaul as a restoration of a Roman province.

Actually, Theodoric career itself makes it an acceptable imperial candidate for both nobilities. While born a barbarian, he had been raised in Constantinople from age 8 to 18 in the purest roman traditions. He then accomplished a full military and administrative career for the eastern part of the Empire, culminating in him being named consul for the year 484. This ultimate civic honor makes him part of the Roman senatorial nobility. Thus, he is not perceived much differently upon his arrival in Italy than from Anthemius or Julius Nepos, like him sent by Constantinople to raise the fortune of the West. But unlike them, his military and government skills and his fierce desire to get accepted by the Italian nobility enabled him to stay in power, and even being hailed as a new Trajan for regaining to Rome lost provinces in Illyricum, Gallia Narbonensis and Hispania. By 526, he was even planning a conquest of the Vandal kingdom in North African, like Majorianus and Anthemius did in their time.

This reality does not mean there was no tension between the East and the West, especially after the crowning of Justin I. But these tensions do not mean that recognition was withdrawn or never there to begin with. Indeed, during the full history of the Roman Empire, such tensions arose on a regular basis, and even reached full out war on a few occasions. The withdrawal of such a recognition actually happened after the death of both Theodoric and its grand-son and heir, Athalaric. It is the Gothic hardening which led to the execution of Amalasuintha, which had great relations with Justinian and that led to the Gothic war, that conducted the Eastern court to downgrade Theodoric Res Publica to a mere regular barbarian kingdom for propaganda purposes, Justian advocating this costly, long and difficult war as a reconquest of the roman heartland sullied by barbarians.

Thus, according to Jonathan J. Arnold, this widely accepted downgrading does not correspond to local contemporary reality, and the Western Roman Empire actually outlived its commonly accepted end date of 476 by almost 60 years. Its end came with Justinian's conquest which depopulated and impoverished Italy, destroying its institutions and legal structures.


 * Hi. I removed this addition because it only appears to cite one modern source and is mostly based on WP:primary sources. This might raise the suspicion that WP:original research based on primary sources and/or WP:synthesis has taken place. We need to summarize what WP:secondary sources have to say on Theodoric, and how they interpret the primary sources.
 * If this idea is notable, it probably doesn't deserve more than a sentence, in my opinion, but I leave to others more knowledgeable on Theodoric such as to comment further.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good call - as this modern and very Roman interpretation is problematic for several reasons. Theodoric's Gothic retinue would have questioned his legitimacy over them as Goths had he been primarily interested in being lord of Italy for a Roman cause as the new Roman emperor. Recent biographer of Theodoric, Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, writes: "The “Roman” interpretation of Theodoric has recently been taken to extremes in the theory that Theodoric was virtually a Western Roman emperor (WRE) in Italy. According to this view, Theodoric restored the Roman Empire in the West, which he ruled as princeps Romanus" and then Wiemer stresses "It proceeds from the conviction that the willingness of Theodoric’s subjects to accept him as ruler cannot be derived from a single, unified notion of legitimacy, whatever its nature or definition." [Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, Theoderic the Great: King of Goths, Ruler of Romans, trans. Noël Dillon (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2023), 16.] Furthermore, it is widely accepted that according to the Byzantines, the final Western Roman Emperor was none other than Julius Nepos. Even when Theodoric was king, he kept the two ethnic groups separate. For instance, only Goths could carry certain military equipment (swords, lances, shields, and helmets), the hairstyles between Goths and Romans were distinctive, as was their language. (Wiemer 2023, p. 153) Even though for all intents and purposes, the power Theodoric exercised was like unto a Western Roman Emperor, the fact remains he never identified himself as such and neither did the Romans really, especially not the Emperors in the East. This matters in the post 476 version of the world. These and other reasons are why he chose to rule from Ravenna and not Rome. At best it can be given treatment in a extended informational note, but caveated that most mainstream historians have not characterized him as the Western Roman Emperor for important reasons, not the least of which being the lack of such legitimization from the Byzantines. To this end, see the corresponding criticism of Theodoric as Western Roman Emperor in (Costambeys, Marios. “The Legacy of Theoderic.” Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016): 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075435816000587. / Also see; Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, "Review of Arnold" Sehepunkte 15, no. 10. (2015) http://www.sehepunkte.de/2015/10/25443.html). --Obenritter (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you both and  for this precious insight. I will definitly be (and I am already) reading the material you provided, as I am always eager to get a more nuanced and precise understanding of this topic that I like particularly. The critics of J.J. Arnold's work is indeed very interesting.
 * However, your remarks only reinfoce my conviction that the topic of the imperial caracteristics (or lake there of) of Theodoric, albeit in a much more synthetical and nuanced form as you both pointed out, should be addressed in the main article. This question seems to become prevalent in modern studies and more generally as Late Antiquity is getting fashionable. And as we have just seen, its answer is complicated and debated.
 * Thus, I think we could address the topic quite succintly (through a note or a subsection, I am not accusomted enough to Wikipedia rules to know the policy differences) by stating the main reasons some scholar think he was actually viewed as an emperor, at least by some in the italian nobility (Use of imperial titles and regalia, the ability to wield imperial powers, tacit recognition in the East) while others thinks he was definitly viewed as a barbarian king, especially in the East (lack of formal recognition by Constantinople, segregation between goths and romans, etc.)
 * What are your thoughts on this more nuanced approach ?-- GalcianFR (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Add what you think needs to be said—for and against Arnold's view—and one of us can edit it thereafter and perhaps provide additional insight. It's certainly worth discussing in either case...perhaps under a section titled "Modern historiographical debate" near the end (or at the end) and make the case there. Herr Doktor, was denken Sie darüber?"
 * Ok. I just did, then. I tried to be more synthetic and more nuanced than my first approach. Please feel free to develop or edit as you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalcianFR (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Mausoleum of Theoderic.JPG