Stilicho

[Honorius]

Im re reading Norwichs Byzantum books and was just wondering... Do you guys think Stilicho had any plans to place hes own son Eucharius on the throne of the Western empire or maybe even the east?

[Neos Dionysos]

Im re reading Norwichs Byzantum books and was just wondering... Do you guys think Stilicho had any plans to place hes own son Eucharius on the throne of the Western empire or maybe even the east?

 

No... I say no, because he was so loyal to the Theodosian Family and owed everything he had to it. I think he considered because Honorius was sterile and he had already married his first daughter Maria to Honorius but there was no children at all by it and then his second daugther Thermantia... and again no children but I don't see it as a real thing he would've went through since he would have gone against the Theodoisian line, against his father-in-laws family. Had a son been born, things would have been very different in the West and the empire as a whole, he was the last guardian of a united empire or at least was trying hard to do so. Several modern scholars have taken a hard line against him, saying he sold out the empire, while other scholars completely disagree and I think prove a better case that his actions were geared toward safeguarding as much of the empire as possible and mainly the areas of the empire that really mattered. Italy, Africa, Illryicum, Macedonia, Greece and then the East. Gaul, Britain and Hispania were second rate provinces to men ruling, and were ignored, so another reason why the Senate wanted Stilicho was killed was because he allowed Gaul to be ravaged and many of the Senate had huge extensive estates in the region. I think in the end, he threw is all his eggs in one basket to make his bid for the East, to unite the empire and it failed. Personally, I don't think he had the resources he needed to accomplish all his goals or adiquitely defend the empire. His supporters to dwindled... Claudian had died as did Ambrose who was his greatest support I think and who supported the claim that he had guardianship over both sons not just Honorius. And in the end, he allowed his enemies to get to Honorius and turn them against him. At his death, Alraic was a Roman Commander and paid the money that would be given to such a commander and for a 'Roman Army', he was going to use him then against the ursuper Constantine III in Gaul, but the Senate had had enough, how he employed Alaric and his barbarians as Romans to fight other Romans and yet this is the EXACT same policy that Theodoisus used. The idea that any barbarian group could be a potential enemy against another barbarian group even if they are your current enemy.

 

In the end, I think he is still getting a bad rap, (more so than my views on Valens cause I admit he f***ed up), but Stilicho was a man who did what he did for he felt in his eyes was the best for Rome... with more time, the negativeness of his actions are being reviewed and you can make an excellent arguement that he did not and never had designs to 'sell out' the empire.

 

 

 

(FYI, it might be some time before I respond to anyone... curse you Honorius I would love this topic why did you have to wait till I left the country!! )

[Honorius]

Im re reading Norwichs Byzantum books and was just wondering... Do you guys think Stilicho had any plans to place hes own son Eucharius on the throne of the Western empire or maybe even the east?

 

No... I say no, because he was so loyal to the Theodosian Family and owed everything he had to it. I think he considered because Honorius was sterile and he had already married his first daughter Maria to Honorius but there was no children at all by it and then his second daugther Thermantia... and again no children but I don't see it as a real thing he would've went through since he would have gone against the Theodoisian line, against his father-in-laws family. Had a son been born, things would have been very different in the West and the empire as a whole, he was the last guardian of a united empire or at least was trying hard to do so. Several modern scholars have taken a hard line against him, saying he sold out the empire, while other scholars completely disagree and I think prove a better case that his actions were geared toward safeguarding as much of the empire as possible and mainly the areas of the empire that really mattered. Italy, Africa, Illryicum, Macedonia, Greece and then the East. Gaul, Britain and Hispania were second rate provinces to men ruling, and were ignored, so another reason why the Senate wanted Stilicho was killed was because he allowed Gaul to be ravaged and many of the Senate had huge extensive estates in the region. I think in the end, he threw is all his eggs in one basket to make his bid for the East, to unite the empire and it failed. Personally, I don't think he had the resources he needed to accomplish all his goals or adiquitely defend the empire. His supporters to dwindled... Claudian had died as did Ambrose who was his greatest support I think and who supported the claim that he had guardianship over both sons not just Honorius. And in the end, he allowed his enemies to get to Honorius and turn them against him. At his death, Alraic was a Roman Commander and paid the money that would be given to such a commander and for a 'Roman Army', he was going to use him then against the ursuper Constantine III in Gaul, but the Senate had had enough, how he employed Alaric and his barbarians as Romans to fight other Romans and yet this is the EXACT same policy that Theodoisus used. The idea that any barbarian group could be a potential enemy against another barbarian group even if they are your current enemy.

 

In the end, I think he is still getting a bad rap, (more so than my views on Valens cause I admit he f***ed up), but Stilicho was a man who did what he did for he felt in his eyes was the best for Rome... with more time, the negativeness of his actions are being reviewed and you can make an excellent arguement that he did not and never had designs to 'sell out' the empire.

 

 

 

(FYI, it might be some time before I respond to anyone... curse you Honorius I would love this topic why did you have to wait till I left the country!! )

 

Lol soz Neos !!! remember pics of Blachernae

 

anyway... to be honest i never knew the majority of Senators had large estates in Gaul...forgive my ignorance... Why has Stilicho been given bad press though?? is that because of Gibbon?

[Lethe]

... Why has Stilicho been given bad press though?? is that because of Gibbon?

 

Well, he had quite a problem for that time:he was German, and thus the most suitable target for, hm, conspiracies that a nice bunch of Romans from the palace were cooking up for him. Because of these,at the end Honorius was forced to execute him.

[Honorius]

i was referring to modern scholars.

[Kosmo]

He had no real power base depending on temporary arrangements with his german mercenaries .

 

I'll say that even if he had more succes things would go bad for the empire. His rise and the rise of others like him was bad news.

 

He did little to defend the empire and his policy toward Alaric was strange and gave birth to accuses of treason. In my opinion his actions are treason if he defeated so many time the visgoths and then let them go. He spared Alaric, but hated Rufus. This was very bad for the empire.

 

He was clearly looking for power so if he had the chance he would grab the purple thru his son that was a theodosian by blood. If he could defeat Rufus nothing will stay between his son and the purple.

 

His bad press was deserved.

[Honorius]

kosmo if by Rufus u mean Rufinus.... he was in the east i dont think he wouldve been that much of an obstacle to take the western throne

[Neos Dionysos]

He had no real power base depending on temporary arrangements with his german mercenaries .

 

I'll say that even if he had more succes things would go bad for the empire. His rise and the rise of others like him was bad news.

 

He did little to defend the empire and his policy toward Alaric was strange and gave birth to accuses of treason. In my opinion his actions are treason if he defeated so many time the visgoths and then let them go. He spared Alaric, but hated Rufus. This was very bad for the empire.

 

He was clearly looking for power so if he had the chance he would grab the purple thru his son that was a theodosian by blood. If he could defeat Rufus nothing will stay between his son and the purple.

 

His bad press was deserved.

 

You are ignoring a key fact Kosmo. His actions toward Alaric were delebrite. He was following the policy set forth by Theodosius, that any barbarian force, (whether your enemy now or before), a potential ally against future barbarian threats. He was hoping to ring Alaric back into the treaty he had made with Theodoisus, (and he did but it was too late when he did). The actions of the courts of East and West, creating a cold war between the two was the most destructive thing possible. Alaric played off both sides against the other and benifited greatly and gave examples for later barbarian cheiftans to use and to aspire too.

 

He was semibarbari... his mother was Roman, his father Vandal.

 

He did a lot to defend the empire, he campaigned up the Rhine, and yes, he stripped the area to much which allowed Suvei, Vandals and Burgandians to invade but it was done to raise forces quickly to defeat Ragadgesus and his forces which were around Italy, which he decievely defeated. He was defending the important areas of the empire, Italy, Africa and the provinces b/w East and West.

 

If you are calling Stilicho by his actions a tratior, than you should call Theodosius one as well, since his policy was what he used and he did the exact same actions. Calling one a tratior and the other not is bing hypocritical.

 

I blame the faults of the late empire on Theodoisus because he left to young, inexperienced and ill-equppied sons on the thrones of the empire when the time demanded a strong, military leader to run the show. His civil wars could have been avoided, (especially the one against Arbogast and Eugenius), and I think that the empire would have recovered well had he completely acknowledged Maximus in the West and he in the East.

 

Getting back to Stilicho, Kosmo, your comments are a perfect example of the bad press he gets which is most undeservedly. I would highly suggest you read, "Theodosius: The Empire at Bay", "Barbarians and Bishops", "The Rome that did not Fall", or "Generalissmos of the Western Roman Empire". All of them take the good, bad, and ugly of the situation which surrounded Stilicho and you are shown how he was quickly painted, (apocraflyly mind you), badly. Stilicho, focused too much I think on extending his guardianship over the East, especially in a time when there was an ursupation in the West. The final straw was when he forced the Senate to give in to the demands of Alaric, agree to make him a high Roman commander, (which the Eastern court had already done years before and gave him access to arms factory), and to pay him gold and money that would equal his new position. Mind you it was money that was EASILY within the pockets of any number of Roman Senators who were paid more than ten times the amount Alaric demanded yearly, but perish the thought they pay money out of thier own pockets. And so Alaric was now moving against Constantine III in Gaul and Stilicho's enemies struck, saying he sold out Rome, he was in league with Alaric and that now he's using a barbarian to kill and subdue a Roman ursuper.

 

It should be noted that Stilicho never destroyed Alaric for another major tactical reason. Besides the point that he wished to use Alaric and his force for Rome's cause, he had at most 60,000 men to defend the West... if he committed his force, (which was smaller of course than the total amount avalable), he would have no army to defend against new threats and if he lost, no army to defend Italy.

 

So, Stilicho I think was a man trying despretly to hold the Empire together, but he never had the resources he needed to get the job done and this I blame on Theodosius.

 

(Again, might be some time before I reply).

[Kosmo]

It was the strangest way to carry a war. Not wanting to defeat a foe that it's a major threat to your country it's not wise. He created Alaric in a major player unlike any barbarian king before and Alaric gave later a terrible death blow to the West. He retreated his soldiers from the Rhine and not only Gaul was lost, but also Spain that was rich and untouched by war and that led later to the loss of vital Africa.

He tried to balance the barbarians and the romans, the West and the East not to restore the empire, but to control everything by himself.

I agree with you: the two young and weak emperors and the division between West and East were the most important factors that kept a soution from the crisis. Maybe if he succeded in becaming sole ruler than he could do something about the barbarians, but he only added to the problem with his actions.

Why he did not had the resources?

After his death the West was a shadow and this is what brought the historians "bias" against him.

What was needed was another Aurelius not somebody with a weak position that tries to do tricks on a wire.

[suzhannah]

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilicho#Controversy

 

A chief debate regarding Stilicho is whether his defense of the empire was more out of self-interest than loyalty to Rome or Theodosius. Many historians argue that his chief goal was elevating his son to emperor, perhaps while reuniting the whole empire; this theory explains his almost continual struggle against Rufinus, his Eastern equivalent.

[Neos Dionysos]

It was the strangest way to carry a war. Not wanting to defeat a foe that it's a major threat to your country it's not wise. He created Alaric in a major player unlike any barbarian king before and Alaric gave later a terrible death blow to the West. He retreated his soldiers from the Rhine and not only Gaul was lost, but also Spain that was rich and untouched by war and that led later to the loss of vital Africa.

He tried to balance the barbarians and the romans, the West and the East not to restore the empire, but to control everything by himself.

I agree with you: the two young and weak emperors and the division between West and East were the most important factors that kept a soution from the crisis. Maybe if he succeded in becaming sole ruler than he could do something about the barbarians, but he only added to the problem with his actions.

Why he did not had the resources?

After his death the West was a shadow and this is what brought the historians "bias" against him.

What was needed was another Aurelius not somebody with a weak position that tries to do tricks on a wire.

 

Again, as I said it was the policy of Theodosius to do that to a foe. Also, as I said, if Stilicho had committed completely to destroy Alaric then he would have had no army to defend against a new threat like Radigisus. Stilicho did not make Alraic, Theodoisus made Alaric and because he used the Goths as cannon fodder and then refused to give Alaric rewards for his service he created a terrible situation that would explode once he passed on. Afterward, the East, (either Rufinus or Eutropius), gave him the Roman title of Magister Militum per Illyricum which not only gave him legitmaticy, made him move West and attack Italy but allowed him to equip his army like that of a Roman one. Stilicho finally added the final touch when he gave him a military command and employed his army to fight Constantine III in Gaul. Gaul was in control of an ursuper, (a Roman), and was defended; and Stilicho followed the same actions of Theodosius that the regions of Spain, (despite he was from the area), Gaul and Britian were of secondary importance. I say he did not have the resources because Theodosius squandered so much in his second civil war which could have been completey avoided and in which HE created. Another Auerlian would not have come, because so long as weak child emperors ruled, the powerful generals could rule through them. Stilicho I agree made errors, and put to much in his position to try and secure guardianship over both East and West and this was his failing but I still think, after covering a lot of material on him, that his goals and actions were not all self-centered and were more geared to preserving the empire and to the loyalty of the Theodosius House. Again, I reiterate, if we are to call Stilicho a traitor for his actions then so should Theodosius be called one as well because it was simply a continuation of policy as Stilicho was groomed by Theodosius was his role as "Guardian".

 

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilicho#Controversy

 

A chief debate regarding Stilicho is whether his defense of the empire was more out of self-interest than loyalty to Rome or Theodosius. Many historians argue that his chief goal was elevating his son to emperor, perhaps while reuniting the whole empire; this theory explains his almost continual struggle against Rufinus, his Eastern equivalent.

 

Rufinus was killed soon though and following him Eutropious acted the same way toward Stilicho and the West. It was more the administration of the East which despied the West, espeically a half-barbarian like Stilicho. I don't think his son could ever rule, unless Honorius died childless, (which he did because he was sterile), the Senate would never have allowed the Son of Theodosius to be displaced by the son of Stilicho despite his obvious blood relation to Theodosius.

 

 

 

Again, I ask many of you to at least skim the sections on Stilicho in the books I have mentioned it will increase your knowledge of the period and the situation so much more even if you don't change your opinion on the ultimate case.

Edited June 26, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Honorius]

im just wondering how come gaul isnt that important compared to spain, illyricum etc. is this because it always got barbarian incursions or what??

 

at this time wasnt the senate fairly weak in its role...? like couldnt stilicho still have taken power...?

[Neos Dionysos]

im just wondering how come gaul isnt that important compared to spain, illyricum etc. is this because it always got barbarian incursions or what??

 

at this time wasnt the senate fairly weak in its role...? like couldnt stilicho still have taken power...?

 

 

Spain wasn't considered more important... they were at the same level. Again, the reasoning varies, but from what I've seen it's that because the most important areas were Italy of course, Africa because of the grain, Illyricum because of the highways and communication routes b/w East and West and then the rest of the East. The rest of the empire was in a declining state hence why they were ignored so much and why even in the 3rd Century they were ignored to the extent that rival empires emerged.

 

The Senate was still very influencial in the West, especially since they had an amazing wealth and could be more argued was richer than the state of Rome in the West... Stilicho was in power, de facto power, but he didn't go for the purple because one, logically, he would have no support being half-barbarian which is the most important factor and a reason for the Senate's hatred of him... and two, because I believe he was too loyal. The years of 378-410 are some of the most important and most interesting in Roman History from my view.