4 ms·

Interesting that it was still seen as obvious that the emperor was a God, given that Theodisus II's grandfather had made christianity the state religion.

olddustytrail 3y ago
Most people wouldn't really have a concept of what a "state" was.
- iheartblocks 3y ago
  The concept of state sovereignty wouldn't come about until (approximately) the Treaty of Westphalia, but Romans of this time period would have certainly understood what the government-prescribed religion is
vondur 3y ago
At this point the Roman Empire was Christian. The Emperor was no longer considered a god. They were now considered chosen by God to lead the faithful on Earth.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  The Scythians raised a cup in toast to their King Attila, and Maximinus proposed that the toast should also be to our lord Theodosius. At this, Bigilas spoke out, saying that it was not right that a god and a man should be compared in such a way.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I would not assume that our modern understanding of Christian orthodoxy totally applies. Christianity is a syncretic religion nearly everywhere.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Archelaos 3y ago
Since it is in the context of a panegyric, it should not be taken as a literal theological statement, but as poetic language. However, I would agree that it is some reverberation of the emperor cult, even 68 years after the Edict of Thessalonica. Note also that Roman emperors could be given the epithet "Divus" ("the divine") after their death well into the Christian era. The German Wikipedia has a list: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divus https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divus Although Theodisus II is not included, there appear two East-Roman emperors after him: Leo (†474) and Anastasius (†518).
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  If it was purely poetic language, why the Roman objection to Atilla being compared to a God? Feel like there has to be more to it than that.
  - Archelaos 3y ago
    The "dispute" was about status, not a simple ontological fact. The Roman did not grant Attila the same rank as Theodosius. Calling him "God" means that Theodosius has the highest rank possible, but Attila not.

olddustytrail 3y ago

Most people wouldn't really have a concept of what a "state" was.

iheartblocks 3y ago
The concept of state sovereignty wouldn't come about until (approximately) the Treaty of Westphalia, but Romans of this time period would have certainly understood what the government-prescribed religion is

vondur 3y ago

At this point the Roman Empire was Christian. The Emperor was no longer considered a god. They were now considered chosen by God to lead the faithful on Earth.

LAC-Tech 3y ago
The Scythians raised a cup in toast to their King Attila, and Maximinus proposed that the toast should also be to our lord Theodosius. At this, Bigilas spoke out, saying that it was not right that a god and a man should be compared in such a way.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I would not assume that our modern understanding of Christian orthodoxy totally applies. Christianity is a syncretic religion nearly everywhere.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Archelaos 3y ago

Since it is in the context of a panegyric, it should not be taken as a literal theological statement, but as poetic language. However, I would agree that it is some reverberation of the emperor cult, even 68 years after the Edict of Thessalonica. Note also that Roman emperors could be given the epithet "Divus" ("the divine") after their death well into the Christian era. The German Wikipedia has a list: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divus https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divus Although Theodisus II is not included, there appear two East-Roman emperors after him: Leo (†474) and Anastasius (†518).

LAC-Tech 3y ago
If it was purely poetic language, why the Roman objection to Atilla being compared to a God? Feel like there has to be more to it than that.
- Archelaos 3y ago
  The "dispute" was about status, not a simple ontological fact. The Roman did not grant Attila the same rank as Theodosius. Calling him "God" means that Theodosius has the highest rank possible, but Attila not.