Editing Theodoric the Great (section)

==Legacy==
Seeking to restore the glory of [[ancient Rome]], Theodoric ruled Italy during one of its most peaceful and prosperous periods and was accordingly hailed as a new [[Trajan]] and [[Valentinian I]] for his building efforts and his religious toleration.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=58, 58fn, 73fn}} His far-sighted goals included taking what was best from Roman culture and combining it with Gothic energy and physical power as a way into the future.{{sfn|Owen|1990|p=97}} Relatively amicable relations between Goths and Romans also make Theodoric's kingdom notable.{{sfn|Fletcher|1997|p=98}} Memories of his reign made him a hero of medieval [[legends about Theodoric the Great|German legends]], as Dietrich von Bern, where the two figures have represented the same person.{{sfn|Lienert|2008|p=3}}
[[File:Theoderich (Vischer).JPG|thumb|right|Bronze statue of Theodoric the Great (by [[Peter Vischer the Elder]], 1512–13), from the monument of Emperor [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I]] in the [[Court Church]] at [[Innsbruck]]]]

Historian [[John Julius Norwich]] wrote:
<blockquote>No other Germanic ruler, setting up his throne on the ruins of the Western Empire, possessed a fraction of his statesmanship and political vision; and when he died ... Italy lost the greatest of her early medieval rulers, unequalled until the days of [[Charlemagne]].{{sfn|Norwich|1988|p=180}}</blockquote>

===Medieval reception and misuse===
{{Main|Dietrich von Bern}}
Theodoric is an important figure in [[Germanic heroic legend]] as the character ''Dietrich von Bern'' ({{langx|goh|Deotrīh}}), known in Old Norse as ''Þjóðrekr'' or ''Þiðrekr'', and Old English as ''Þēodrīc''. In German legends, Dietrich becomes an exile from his native kingdom of Lombardy, fighting with the help of [[Attila|Etzel]] against his usurping uncle, [[Ermanaric|Ermenrich]]. Only the [[Old High German]] ''[[Hildebrandslied]]'' still contains Odoacer ({{langx|goh|Otacher}}) as Dietrich's antagonist. The 13th century Norse [[Þiðreks saga]], based on lost Low German sources, moves the location of Dietrich's life to [[Westphalia]] and northern Germany. The legends paint a generally positive picture of Dietrich, with only some influence visible from the negative traditions of the church.{{sfn|Haymes|Samples|1996|pp=20–21}}{{sfn|Heinzle|1999|pp=1–10}}

Beyond the appropriation of Theodoric’s legacy for medieval legends, his namesake and exploits were also seized upon in various nationalist contexts, particularly in 19th- and 20th-century Germany. For their politico-ideological purposes, historians and ideologues recast Theodoric as a prototypical Germanic hero, emphasizing his supposed racial and cultural purity. During the Nazi era, he was celebrated as a model of Germanic leadership and correspondingly used in state propaganda.{{sfn|Wiemer|2023|pp=460–467}}

===Modern historiographical debate===
[[File:Estimated image of Theodoric the Great in the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo. Ravenna, Italy.jpg|thumb|Probable portrait of Theodoric adorned in imperial clothing in the [[Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo]]. Falsely attributed to Justinian in the 19th century, it may also represent [[Anastasius I Dicorus|Anastasius I]] or [[Justin I]].]]

There is an ongoing debate among modern historians as to how qualify the nature of power Theodoric wielded in his domains. Traditionalists have argued for some time that Theodoric was a Germanic king, citing as their frame of reference later Byzantine sources—written during the [[Gothic War (535–554)|Gothic war]]—that brand him as a barbarian king, who merely mimicked Roman customs. One scholar, Jonathan J. Arnold, advocates that this nature changed during the course of the 6th century; Arnold alludes to local and contemporary sources such as [[Magnus Felix Ennodius]]'s ''Vita beatissimi viri Epiphani episcopi Ticinensis ecclesiae'', [[Cassiodorus]]'s ''Variae'' and ''Laudes'' or the ''Pars Posterior'' of the [[Anonymus Valesianus]], arguing therefrom that Rome in the West did not fall in 476, but merely awaited a "proper Roman emperor to rule it".{{sfn|Arnold|2014|p=10}} According to Arnold, these two sources ultimately reveal that Theodoric was actually viewed both by the Italian nobility and the Eastern court in Constantinople as a legitimate Western Roman emperor.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=7–8, 58–61, 70–92}}

Arnold built his case on the fact that Theodoric widely used the title of ''princeps'' for himself, and employed the term ''Res Publica'' to describe the domain he ruled.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=88–91}} These titles, although archaic, were customarily reserved for the emperor and his empire. Thereto Arnold explains that the restraint shown by Theodoric in refraining to use titles such as ''Imperator'', ''Imperium'' or ''Augustus'' was aimed at sparing the pride of the Eastern monarchy and ensuring Byzantium of its seniority, but that this did not diminish Theodoric's claim to the purple in the West.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=88–91, 110–113, 170–174}}{{efn|Jonathan J. Arnold further justifies his claim by stating that Theodoric behaved as an emperor, using and wearing the imperial ''regalia'' returned by [[Anastasius I Dicorus]] in 497.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=70–72}} Beyond these observations, Arnold identifies how Theodoric's imperial authority was implicitly recognized in the East to the extent that the Ostrogothic king was allowed to name consuls. Then there is the latinisation of his name to Flavius Theodoricus, his full administrative career in the East, which culminated with a consulship in 484 that granted him senatorial nobility and the capacity to impose Roman law upon Italo-Romans and Gothic populations alike.{{sfn|Arnold|2014|pp=152–153, 158–159}} }}

This view is however rejected by other scholars, such as Theodoric's most recent biographer, Hans-Ulrich Wiemer. He claims that Jonathan J. Arnold takes at face value, comments of a few interested parties among the Italian nobility. Wiemer contends that these few sources, close to Theodoric and of a doubtful impartiality, should not be used to infer the general opinion toward Theodoric from all classes of the Italian population or among the residents of Constantinople.{{sfn|Wiemer|2015}} He further states that this vision of Theodoric's position fails to address the duality of his rule; namely, having to retain the loyalty of both Romans and Goths alike. Wiemer posits that, "The “Roman” interpretation of Theodoric has recently been taken to extremes in the theory that Theodoric was virtually a Western Roman emperor in Italy. According to this view, Theodoric restored the Roman Empire in the West, which he ruled as ''princeps Romanus''. »{{sfn|Wiemer|2023|p=16}} Demonstrating his doubts on this, Wiemer points out how during Theodoric's rule, he kept the two ethnic groups—Italo-Romans and Goths—clearly separated. For instance, only Goths could carry certain military equipment (swords, lances, shields, and helmets) or assume key positions in the military hierarchy, and the hairstyles between Goths and Romans remained distinctive, let alone their language.{{sfn|Wiemer|2023|p=153}} Wiemer also avows that the Eastern court never formally acknowledged Theodoric as a Western Emperor, a necessary condition to become one, the last of which ever recognized by Constantinople being [[Julius Nepos]], who died in 480.{{sfn|Wiemer|2023|pp=22–23}}  Additionally, Wiemer highlights the fact that for political reasons, the Frankish and Burgundian kings never recognized Theodoric as an emperor—each established as rulers in their own right—and as the Ostrogothic king's Germanic kinsman, they were tied to one another via diplomatic marriages.{{sfn|Wiemer|2023|pp=238–240}}