Empire of God, page 7
That conflict was quickly resolved, at least superficially, but the strife was far from over. After more high-handed conduct, as well as “curses and abuse” and some stone-throwing from the Romans, the Goths, “shocked by this unexpected ill-treatment…broke out into open rebellion.”90 It was a war of unspeakable savagery. The Goths killed many Roman citizens and made others wish they had been killed: “For without distinction of age or sex all places were ablaze with slaughter and great fires, sucklings were torn from the very breasts of their mothers and slain, matrons and widows whose husbands had been killed before their eyes were carried off, boys of tender or adult age were dragged away over the dead bodies of their parents. Finally, many aged men, crying that they had lived long enough after losing their possessions and their beautiful women, were led into exile with their arms pinioned behind their backs, and weeping over the glowing ashes of their ancestral homes.”91
At one point, when the Romans made a tactical retreat from a point they had held in Thrace, the Goths poured and “spread devastation over all the wide plains of Thrace…with a most foul confusion of robbery, murder, bloodshed, fires, and shameful violation of the bodies of freemen.”92 Ammianus Marcellinus adds:
Then there were to be seen and to lament acts most frightful to see and to describe: women driven along by cracking whips, and stupefied with fear, still heavy with their unborn children, which before coming into the world endured many horrors; little children too clinging to their mothers. Then could be heard the laments of high-born boys and maidens, whose hands were fettered in cruel captivity. Behind these were led last of all grown-up girls and chaste wives, weeping and with downcast faces, longing even by a death of torment to forestall the imminent violation of their modesty. Among these was a freeborn man, not long ago rich and independent, dragged along like some wild beast and railing at you, Fortune, as merciless and blind, since you had in a brief moment deprived him of his possessions, and of the sweet society of his dear ones; had driven him from his home, which he saw fallen to ashes and ruins, and sacrificed him to a bloody victor, either to be torn from limb to limb or amid blows and tortures to serve as a slave.93
Oddly, Sozomen glosses over all this and says only that the cause of the strife was tension between Arian Christian and pagan Goths, and that the violence broke out only after the Goths had resolved all their differences: “The Goths were not long in making peace among themselves; and in unreasonable excitement, they then began to ravage Thrace and to pillage the cities and villages.”94
Whatever the cause, the Goths were indeed laying waste to Roman cities and towns. Valens hurried to punish them for their impudence, leading Roman troops against the Goths in battle at Hadrianopolis (Adrianople, now Edirne). It did not go as he expected. The Romans, says Ammianus Marcellinus, “were more and more exhausted by hunger and worn out by thirst, as well as distressed by the heavy burden of their armor. Finally, our line was broken by the onrushing weight of the barbarians, and since that was the only resort in their last extremity, they took to their heels in disorder as best they could.”95
As the Romans fled, the Goths pursued them: “And so the barbarians, their eyes blazing with frenzy, were pursuing our men, in whose veins the blood was chilled with numb horror: some fell without knowing who struck them down, others were buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants; some were slain by the sword of a comrade; for though they often rallied, there was no ground given, nor did anyone spare those who retreated. Besides all this, the roads were blocked by many who lay mortally wounded, lamenting the torment of their wounds; and with them also mounds of fallen horses filled the plains with corpses. To these ever-irreparable losses, so costly to the Roman state, a night without the bright light of the moon put an end.”96 As night fell, Valens himself “fell mortally wounded by an arrow, and presently breathed his last breath; and he was never afterwards found anywhere.”97
The Romans had not suffered such a catastrophic defeat for centuries. Nevertheless, they fought on until 382, when the war with the Goths ended with what was essentially a Roman capitulation: the Goths would be allowed to settle within the empire without assimilating and becoming Romans, as other immigrants had done in the past. They maintained their own culture, customs, and traditions. When they served in the army, they would do so under their own commanders. The chain of events was set into motion that would lead to the sack of Rome in 410 and the fall of the western empire in 476. Those who put an end to the empire in the West were descendants of the Goths who had fought so tenaciously against Valens almost a century before; Odoacer, who deposed the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus, is identified in several contemporary sources as “King of the Goths.”
One of the key elements that had made the Roman Empire great was the decision, initially made in 90 BC, to extend the privilege of Roman citizenship to people who were not inhabitants of the city of Rome or its environs. Populations that the Roman Empire conquered could become Roman citizens under certain circumstances, and with citizenship came the status of being a civilized man, a member of the world’s foremost (if not only) civilized society. Adopting Roman dress, language, and customs went along with this and was generally considered a sign of sophistication. This contributed mightily for centuries to the cohesiveness of this vast empire.
The Goths, however, were not interested in becoming Roman citizens in order to appear civilized and sophisticated. They weren’t interested in becoming Romans at all. They wanted to maintain their own identity as a distinct people with vastly different practices. This inevitably caused strife, although the Gothic War itself was touched off by obvious mistreatment, or at very least severe mismanagement, on the part of the Romans. The Romans learned that it is not so easy to assimilate a massive foreign population all at once and to avoid strife in doing so.
Nowadays, of course, the Goths’ refusal to undergo Romanization would be celebrated, as a manifestation of the “diversity” that is, we are constantly reminded, “our strength.” The story of the Goths inside the Roman Empire, however, tells a vastly different tale and serves as a bracing reminder of the dangers of mass migration, non-assimilation, and cutting corners with one’s military.
Valens was responsible for one positive development. He noted upon his accession that taxes had been steadily rising, to the extent that they were by that time double what they had been during the time of Constantine. Historian Warren Treadgold states: “If the empire was to continue on its current course, it was obviously in trouble, perhaps even in danger of fiscal and military ruin.”98
Valens and his Western counterpart, the famously ill-tempered Valentinian, stopped tax increases and appointed officials to ensure honesty in tax collection and put an end to unjust practices. Cutting taxes also relieved the burden on the people of Thrace in particular, where the rampaging Goths had destroyed the farms and homes of all too many people.
* * *
82 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, XXXI.4.4. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/31*.html
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., XXXI.4.5.
85 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Chester D. Hartranft, trans. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890), Book VI, chapter 37. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26026.htm.
86 Ibid.
87 Marcellinus, The Roman History, op. cit., XXXI.4.6.
88 Ibid., XXXI.4.9.
89 Ibid., XXXI.5.4.
90 Ibid., XXXI.6.3.
91 Ibid., XXXI.6.7-8.
92 Ibid., XXXI.8.6.
93 Ibid., XXXI.8.7-8.
94 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit.
95 Marcellinus, The Roman History, op. cit., XXXI.13.7.
96 Ibid., XXXI.13.10.
97 Ibid., XXXI.13.12.
98 Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, (Stanford University Press, 1997), 63.
Chapter Five
Theology and Politics
A Second Ecumenical Council
The Gothic War was still going on as Emperor Theodosius I finally ratified the trend of the last seven decades and proclaimed Christianity the official religion of the empire. One of his motivations may have been to clarify that to be a Roman citizen meant to be an Orthodox Christian, as opposed to the Arian and pagan Goths.
On February 27, 380, Theodosius stated: “It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter…and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.”99 Then Theodosius added: “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.”100
Various legal restrictions on these heretics ensued, but they had by no means departed from the scene. Neither had the Arians. The controversy over Arianism also continued to roil the empire. In 337, the champion of Orthodoxy at Nicaea, Athanasius of Alexandria, was exiled in Trier in far-off Germany on the basis of a raft of false accusations. In his place, Constantine’s son and successor Constantius II—himself an Arian—in 339 appointed Gregory of Cappadocia—also an Arian—as patriarch of Alexandria. With Sassanid Persia threatening the empire, it was of cardinal importance for Egypt to be free of civil strife, but it was not to be. The controversy raged on, with Emperor Valens also demonstrating a pronounced sympathy for the Arians. Athanasius was restored to the see of Alexandria in 346, and when he died in 373, was succeeded by his protégé Peter; however, in 378, Peter was deposed at Valens’s bidding and replaced with an Arian.
Theodosius, however, was determined to put a stop to all this and unify the empire and its faith, once and for all. In specifying that he was declaring the religion of Pope Damasus of Rome and Pope Peter of Alexandria as the official religion of the empire, he was specifying that he was referring to Orthodox Christianity, not Arianism. Theodosius also convened another ecumenical council, this time in Constantinople itself, a defiant choice in light of the fact that at that time, the city was decidedly pro-Arian. The council refused to admit bishops who wouldn’t accept the Nicene Creed, including even the Arian patriarch of Constantinople, Demophilos. At Theodosius’s behest, Arian bishops all over the empire were deposed.
The Council of Constantinople also declared: “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor after the bishop of Rome.”101 This single sentence contained a principle, stated so succinctly and matter-of-factly at this council, that would prove to be a source of endless controversy later in the life of both the church and the empire.
Meanwhile, Constantinople itself was growing so rapidly that an increasingly large area of it was outside the wall Constantine had built. In order to provide these citizens a measure of protection and make the city’s defenses correspond to its full extent, Emperors Arcadius (who reigned from 383 to 408) and Theodosius (who reigned from 402 to 450) began a massive project to strengthen and expand the city walls. Once again, no one objected that the walls were “racist.”
A Check on Imperial Power
Although the emperor was not a bishop or bearer of any other ecclesiastical office, no one questioned his right to convene ecumenical councils. Indeed, neither the pope of Rome nor any other ecclesiastical official had the recognized authority at that time to do so. The Christian emperor’s authority in the church was a development from his imperial power itself; as the man chosen by God to care for the Christian empire, should he not have primary responsibility for the welfare of God’s church as well?
In the Roman Empire, it was understood: the emperor made the laws. Yet there were also checks on imperial authority, arising from Christianity itself. Roman emperors are generally assumed to have been absolute rulers, holding life and death in their hands and often ruling by caprice without demur from their terrified subjects. This is, however, a caricature for numerous reasons. The emperor was understood to rule by the popular will and not without it, as the many emperors who were toppled by popular uprisings can attest; the uprisings themselves were driven in large part by the conviction that the people could have and did have a say in how the empire was to be governed, even if they generally lacked a routinized process through which they could express their will. The Christian emperor was also subject to the faith of his state, as Theodosius himself learned beyond any doubt around the year 390.
The fifth-century church historian Sozomen explains that a Roman general, Buthericus, was “shamefully exposed at a tavern” in Thessalonica, where he was seen by a charioteer who “attempted an outrage” and was accordingly imprisoned.102 When the chariot races were to be held, however, the people of Thessalonica demanded that the charioteer be released; when Buthericus refused, a mob formed and killed the general.
Theodosius, enraged, “commanded that a certain number of the citizens should be put to death. The city was filled with the blood of many unjustly shed; for strangers, who had but just arrived there on their journey to other lands, were sacrificed with the others.”103 Another fifth-century church historian, the theologian Theodoret of Cyrrhus, recounts that “in consequence of sedition” in the city of Thessalonica, “the anger of the Emperor [Theodosius] rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.”104
Sozomen tells the heartrending story of a merchant who “offered himself to be slain as a substitute for his two sons who had both been selected as victims, and promised the soldiers to give them all the gold he possessed, on condition of their effecting the exchange.”105 They agreed, but insisted that they could take him as a substitute only for one of his sons, and as he could not choose one of them to be killed, had to watch as both were put to death.
At that time, Theodosius’s court was in Milan, but when he returned there and tried to enter the church, the local bishop, Ambrose, made it clear to him that his behavior was entirely unbecoming of a Christian emperor. “You do not reflect, it seems, O Emperor,” Ambrose told Theodosius, “on the guilt you have incurred by that great massacre; but now that your fury is appeased, do you not perceive the enormity of your crime? You must not be dazzled by the splendor of the purple you wear, and be led to forget the weakness of the body which it clothes.”
Ambrose reminded Theodosius that all human beings were equal in dignity, even an emperor and his people: “Your subjects, O Emperor, are of the same nature as yourself, and not only so, but are likewise your fellow servants; for there is one Lord and Ruler of all, and He is the maker of all creatures, whether princes or people. How would you look upon the temple of the one Lord of all? How could you lift up in prayer hands steeped in the blood of so unjust a massacre? Depart then, and do not by a second crime add to the guilt of the first.”106
Sozomen says that Ambrose dared to take hold of the emperor’s imperial robe and ordered Theodosius: “Stand back! A man defiled by sin, and with hands imbrued in blood unjustly shed, is not worthy, without repentance, to enter within these sacred precincts, or partake of the holy mysteries.”107
The emperor, according to Theodoret, accepted Ambrose’s judgment, and “with many tears and groans returned to his palace.”108 He then “shut himself up in his palace and shed floods of tears.”109 Theodosius tried to assuage Ambrose’s anger but to no avail. Finally he went to see the bishop and said humbly: “I beseech you, in consideration of the mercy of our common Lord, to unloose me from these bonds, and not to shut the door which is opened by the Lord to all that truly repent.”110 Ambrose told Theodosius that he must demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance for his unjust edicts by, among other things, instituting a cooling-off period for the imperial anger: “When sentence of death or of proscription has been signed against anyone, thirty days are to elapse before execution, and on the expiration of that time the case is to be brought again before you, for your resentment will then be calmed and you can justly decide the issue.”111 Theodosius agreed, whereupon Ambrose once again allowed him to enter the church and receive holy communion.
