Broadcasting Imperial Policy about the Goths: Theodosius’ Torque-Wearing Bodyguards

Introduction: Marking the North in the Greek TraditionIn the subsequent sections, I examine three pieces of visual evidence, the Missorium of Theodosius, the Obelisk of Theodosius and the Column of Theodosius which depict imperial bodyguards wearing torques.After an overview of the history and iconography of the Roman imperial bodyguard and of torques, I argue that the introduction of the torque as an ethnic marker in the iconography of the imperial bodyguard should be understood, at least at its inception during the reign of Theodosius, as an attempt to showcase that the Goths settled on Roman lands had successfully integrated the Roman army.This emphasised that the peace treaty of 382 was the best possible outcome for the Roman Empire.Finally, I employ the date of the peace treaty as a terminus post quem to bring precision to the dating of two Late Antique silver plates that depict an emperor flanked by imperial bodyguards wearing torques. Military failure and the peace treaty of 382In October 382, the emperor Theodosius and the magister militum ('master of the soldiers') Flavius Saturninus negotiated a peace treaty with the Goths, which brought an end to the Gothic War.Although the specific terms of this treaty have been debated because they are not explicitly stated in any extant evidence, the Goths were settled in Moesia Secunda under favourable conditions that granted them a considerable degree of autonomy.4 The Goths were given land to cultivate within the Roman Empire and were allowed to live relatively independently, under their own laws and customs, but could not elect a king or judge, whose influence and power base would facilitate revolt.5 The Goths were expected to pay taxes, but this was probably a small, symbolic sum to stress that they were subjected to the Roman Empire.Goths of fighting age were given a stipend for arms and armour and were expected to fight for the Romans under the command of their own generals, who ultimately answered to Roman commanders.6 Although some scholars, like Mathisen and Halsall, downplay the changes in Roman recruitment models after Adrianople -Romans had employed barbarian troops settled within the Empire for the past 200 years -the independence the Goths maintained after settling in the Empire and the favourable terms of their treaty were noteworthy and were certainly not the expected outcome for wars against barbarians.7 Themistius' Orations 16 and 34 provide insight into how the Theodosian court presented this peace treaty as the best possible outcome, rather than a compromise stemming from the inability to quell the Gothic threat.These orations were respectively delivered to Theodosius in January 383 and late 384 or early 385 in the Senate of Constantinople.8 Themistius (ca.317-388) was a philosopher and statesman.He had 4 On the treaty, see Heather 1991, 157-181; id.2020, 73-75; Kaldellis & Kruse 2023, 29-30; cf.Halsall 2007, 180-185; Kulikowski 2002, 69-84.5 For a comparison of this situation with that of the Limigantes, settled in Illyricum in 359, see Lenski 2002, 350.On the settlement of the Naristi under Marcus Aurelius, see Stickler 2011, 496-497.On treaties with Goths prior to 376, see Heather 1991, 109-121.6 Normally, barbarians would serve under Roman commanders.See Jones 1964, II 611.On the traditional narrative that the aftermath of Adrianople provoked an overhaul of the Eastern Roman army, see Kaldellis & Kruse 2023, 1-2.7 Mathisen 2020, 280-283; Halsall 2007, 184-185.See also Heather 1997, 57-74.8 Heather & Moncur 2001, 199-284, 304.For an overview of the life of Themistius, see Vanderspoel 1995, 27-30.On the date of his death, see Swain 2021, 5 n.13; Wintjes 2005, 146-147.See also Kahlos' chapter in this volume.9 Here, following Heather & Moncur 2001, xii-xiv; Heather 1998, 130-131; id.2010.Also, Swain 2021, 11-13.Cf.Vanderspoel 1995, 2-3. 10 On the importance and need for the late Roman monarchy to secure the support of interest parties (here the aristocracy in the East), which German scholarship has termed 'Akzeptanzsystem', see Ausbüttel 2025, 1-40, 123-137.11 This is the dominant view about the relationship between the Constantinian court and its panegyrists.See