Talk:Battle of the Frigidus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Sentence needs clarifications

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

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

[edit] eugenius: christian, pagan, or bowl of fruit?

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

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

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

He was a Christian, his advisors were pagan. Str1977 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Eugenius was a christian rethor, and he was a puppet of generalissimo Arbogastes, So he didn't have any "advisors". His predecessor Valentinian II used to complain that he was a slave of Arbogastes, and it was said that he had less rights than a common citizen, since he was locked up in his palace by the generalissimo. See PLRE. The senate of Rome just followed Arbogastes - They had to perform as scapegoat. The senate was a powerless body. And after all supporting Arbogastes was profitable, for he provided career and power opportunities to the peoples of Symmachus.
To Str1977: Allthoug pagans and christians fought at both sides at Frigidus, the battle surely did have an element of being a religious showdown. Arbogastes used the Ambrosius cathedral of Milan as a stable for his horses and the bishop had to run for his life, for he was responsible for the removal of the Altar of Victory from the senate of Rome, and he was an opponent of Arbogastes father Bauto. Theodosius was a follower of Ambrosius (and not the other way round). The fall of the pagan Arbogastes was surely a main "Triumph of the Chistians", and it was celebrated that way by Ambrosius and Theodosius. Arbogastes was the last pagan hope. After his fall pagan support in the Roman elite collapsed and in the next century a descendant of the staunch pagan Symmachus became Pope Symmachus! johanthon (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Johanthon, why are you addressing me. I know that and didn't question it. I merely replied to Sthalbach's statement that sounded very convinced but was the opposite of true, namely that Eugenius was a pagan. With "Advisors" I meant Arbogastes (who officially was only a subaltern of the Emperor, but de facto of course was "the man") and others. The remarks about the showdown were not mine. Str1977 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So, I was explaining the obvious? ;-) And partly adressed the wrong guy! Please, forgive me. I'm glad we agree. johanthon 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs improvement

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