Talk:Maximinus Thrax

Untitled

I have deleted this paragraph:

• Pontianus, bishop of Rome, was banished with the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia, and died there in 235, and, according to Baronius (Ann. 137, 138), his successor Anteros met a like fate. Origen thought it expedient to seek safety with his friend Firmilianus, bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea. That province was under the government of Serenianus, whom Firmilianus describes (apud Cyprian, Ep. 75) as "acerbus et dirus persecutor." Frequent earthquakes had roused the panic-stricken population to rage against the Christians as the cause of all disasters (Origen in Matt. xxiv. 9). This was all the more keenly felt after the comparatively long tranquility which they had enjoyed under Alexander Severus and his predecessors. From his retirement Origen addressed two treatises On Martyrdom and On Prayer to his disciple Ambrosius, a deacon of the church of Alexandria (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiatica vi. 28), and Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, both of whom were taken as prisoners to Germany (Origen Exhort. ad Mart. 41).

It has no real content related to Maximinus, but might be useful to someone writing about Christian history, so I've moved it here.

---

The date of death was changed from May 10 to June 24...I can only find one source for the latter date and several for the former...anyone know for sure? Everyking 17:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OOps

This is a good article but I think that it is too culled from the current (and ancient sources) biases regarding this emperor. Maximinus Thrax must have been an amazing and competent man to have risen in the roman social and military establishment with the bias of his upbringing hanging over his head. This bias is reproduced in your article even though hints of this impressive character are in the sources that you quote:

For Elagabalus is said to have made sport of him most foully, saying, "You are reported, Maximinus, to have outworn at times sixteen and twenty and thirty soldiers; can you avail thirty times with a woman?" And when Maximinus saw the disgraceful prince beginning thus, he left the service. In the end, however, the friends of Elagabalus retained him, lest this also be added to Elagabalus's ill-fame, that the bravest man of his time — whom some called Hercules, others Achilles, and others Ajax — had been driven from his army.

And

Having therefore accepted the legion, he immediately began to train it. On every fifth day he had his men parade in armour and fight a sham battle against one another. Their swords, corselets, helmets, shields, tunics, in fact all their arms, he inspected daily; indeed, he himself provided for their boots, so that he was exactly like a father to the troops.

And

When these things had now made him a distinguished man, Alexander, a good judge of great worth, to his own destruction put him in command of the entire army. Everyone, everywhere, was pleased — tribunes, generals, and men. So now Alexander's whole army, which had fallen into a lethargy to a great extent under Elagabalus, Maximinus brought back to his own standard of discipline. (Historia Augusta –The Two Maximini)

How would you describe a soldier who rose through the ranks, to the head of all the army and seems to have had success and praise at every step of the way.

This ancient source certainly makes Maximinus sound like a principled and thoughtful man. I believe that much of the bias on this historical character is based around Gibbon’s unfortunate characterization of Maximinus: “Though a stranger to real wisdom, he was not devoid of selfish cunning” (Gibbon D&F 80). I think that this perception of Maximinus has more to do with Gibbon’s snobbery and narrative practices than anything else.

Here is a question: Did Maximinus want to be emperor? Do any of the ancient sources say that he wanted to be emperor? What would happen to you and the nation, if some of your officers killed the prime minister/president and declared you the grand poo-bah. In Roman day’s it would either be your head on the ground or civil war, and the resulting deaths of thousands. Is it possible to see how he might be trying to make the best out of a bad situation!

Lastly many Christian’s have the misguided view that Maximinus was a great prosecutor of Christians. This is untrue! He messed with the 2 bishops (for good reasons I but I can’t remember them right now. I think that they were failing to ‘render under Caesar’ ) and these two deaths got him on the historical record of as an enemy of the state. There were no prescriptions of ordinary Christians. Just another smear for old Maximinus.

In my mind he is one of the most interesting and dynamic of all the emperors. Lots of bad and inaccurate press! He needs a press agent.

Was Maximinus really a giant?

An eight foot six stature (260 cm) for the Emperor seems rather exaggerated, and indeed unlikely. He'd have seemed literally twice as tall as common men. I think 6 ft 6 (200 cm) seems more reasonable for the giant man. Of course, I wasn't alive back then, and history has proved that men as tall as 9 feet could exist under certain endocrinal or environmental circumstances, i.e. Robert Wadlow.

I wouldn't make assumptions about these things. It's not impossible for people to reach such heights, as Mr. Wadlow proved. Complete random estimates like 6'6" are useless if there is no evidence to support it. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

well how was his height determined? was it given in cubits or in the impepiral system or metric system from the sources that said he was that tall? do they even have his sekleton?

"Literally twice as tall"? The average height around the time for groups such as the coastal Illyrians would be 5 ft 6, with many Romans around 5 ft 5, so in know way was the average height of people around 4 feet, as you were suggesting, as even the middle of the spectrum was still relatively close to modern height averages. StevenJac (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The chief "evidence" for Maximinus' height is Historia Avgvsta, a notoriously unreliable source prone to much exaggeration.

"He was of such size, so Cordus reports, that men said he was six inches over eight feet in height"
||
"Erat praeterea, ut refert Cordus, magnitudine tanta ut octo pedes digitis sex diceretur egressus"
-HA, Maximini Duo, 6

"Maximinus was almost eight and a half feet tall"
||
"am cum esset Maximinus pedum, ut diximus, octo et prope semis"
-HA, Maximini Duo, 28.

See also Herodian; vi.8.1; vii.1.2.

There's no doubt that he was taller than average, but perhaps not 252 cm +. Roman 8'6" = UK Imperial 8'3" = 2.529 m ~ 2.53 m.
Just for comparison, Shaq is 7'1" = 2.16 m, and he's one big guy! Yao Ming is 7'6" = 2.31 m.

As far as I know, no "sekletons" are available of ANY Roman emperor.
Some were cremated, in any case. <->ive 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say his height was exaggerated. We can see similar claims being made about Charlemagne and William Wallace being such unlikely "giants."

---

Removal of "8 feet 6 inches tall" claims

I have removed these claims as they are NOT verifiable. They stem from one source - which is generally held to be unreliable - reporting that "men said that he was 8 foot six"; frankly, this is not enough. We *can* be reasonably sure that he was taller and stronger than his contemporaries, and that he was good at wrestling - the claim of gigantic stature can be ascribed to exaggeration. McNutcase 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We should mention something about his height, ancient sources, no matter how reliable are hard to come by. This page is linked to from the gigantism page and it gives no mention of his height which is somewhat confusing. --BHC 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So we note that he was taller than average... McNutcase 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro looks good now, we don't claim he's 8'6, just that he was said to be. --BHC 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That claim is false and have nothing to do with actual sources. For starter it's simply absurd that ancient roman would use British Imperial Measures (hell, that's ridiculous), then the actual quote in latin from the Historia Augusta is different and clearly states 8 roman feet and 1 roman finger, being roughly 240cm in modern measurements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.148.87 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfair assumptions

I think its unfair to base the idea of "average heights" in a modern political sense in the respect that it would be like viewing islam in a 21st century american opinion in the 5th century A.D. The reason I say this is because no one really knows what the "average height" was in his era, and further more it is down right proposterous to base that of modern day societies aesthetic view of "average height". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.78.62 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone know where the people writting this article come to the idea of his height being 6ft 6 inches?, it would be nice to see a source on that than base it off modern day aesthetic thinking. in the Historia Avgvsta it is said that he was almost 8ft 6inches. How does anyone know he was exaggerating? secondly if he was exaggerating chances are he would have compared it to somthing to base it off of such as cordus saying he was a grass hopper in comparasin to Maximinus thrax, but that is not there.

Height, oh yes, how important. Accounts seem to confirm that he was a man of larger than average stature, so is this not good enough for ye all? Tom J.

In the metric system, 2 m is a round and nice figure for a "tall guy". Converting to the American units, one gets 6t 6in which indeed looks too exact to be a rough estimate, unlike the metric system's rough estimate.

Saying "(roughly) 2 m" one means something like 194 cm to 210 cm, which I personally believe to 99.9% was Thrax's height.

Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello,um

I would have like to put a ‘citation needed’ on the ‘ruthless’ persecution of Christians, however I don’t really know how to. As far as I can remember (history major –emphasis on Roman and Medieval history) that there is no evidence of widespread persecution of Christians during Maximinus’ reign, although later sources would seem to paint him as a cruel and despicable man. It seems that he did have two church leaders put to death, and this is the act that put him on the list. Is there a way in Wikipedia, where the quality of sources could be checked?

If you look through the ancient sources, this poor fellow seems to be a victim of ancient anti-barbarian propaganda. Actually a very positive figure emerges when you read the ancient source (Cassius Dio?).He seems an honorable and Loyal man, who is forced into a position by his men, who loved him. He never went to rome because he was fighting to protect it, also people would not have given a positive welcome. Gibbons hated him as well, as he did not ‘fit’ into his highly structured order. As well as sullying the Roman ‘pureness’ of the Princeps, he is the unwitting first in a long line of craven men who let their own desires jerk the empire to it’s knees. Poor Thrax, badly in need of a image make-over. What is the ancient source for Thrax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazymycroft (talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not 8'6"

We should probably be clear that "octo pedes digitis sex" doesn't mean 8'6" in modern measurement. The Roman foot was shorter than the current imperial measurement, and a digit is roughly 18.5 mm. That height actually comes out to between 8'1" and 8'2" (about 2.48 meters). Vultur (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are correct but Loeb's edition is the only official translation anyone here could point at. Btw, I found this which implies a 7 feet figure (however, I don't think we could use it as a reference). Anyone with a proper reference to a reliable translation?Dipa1965 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear that will be difficult; this is the kind of thing most translations deal with very poorly. What is the policy on Wikipedians translating things -- is that considered OR? Vultur (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that, in the absence of a reliable translation, making your own would not be necessarily considered original research (I've done it once). I couldn't find the related policy/guideline but I am sure I have seen it somewhere in WP. Of course, you have to quote the original text. However, the problem here is that there already exist a widely known translation. We must find a better printed translation or, at least, embed the original text into the article. Dipa1965 (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gibbon would disagree as well. “The stature of Maximin exceeded the measure of eight feet, and circumstances incredible are related of his matchless strength and appetite. — The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (I, vii). Next to this is a footnote, ' Eight Roman feet and one third, which are equal to above eight English feet, as the two measures are to each other in the proportion of 967 to 1000.' --Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -- I would say that 8'2"—3" seems more accurate.

Ah, good. I figured *some* source would have realized that a Roman foot is smaller than an English foot. But just to quibble, Gibbon's "eight Roman feet and one third", at a proportion of 967/1000, is less than 8'1". Eight and one-third feet in our system is 100 inches, divided by 967/1000 is 96.7 inches, or 8 feet 0.7 inches. 8 feet would still have been ENORMOUS in that time period; even more than nowadays. Vultur (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The actual quote from the Historia Augusta never stated anything about Imperial Units, which would not exist back then and I cannot even start about how anti-historical it would be to translate roman measurements into British Imperial measurements, nor it stated anything about 8 and 6 whatever, the actual quote goes like this:

"Erat praeterea, ut refert Cordus, magnitudine tanta, ut octo pedes digito videretur egressus, pollice ita vasto, ut uxoris dextrocherio uteretur pro anulo"

and it informs us that Maximinus was considered to be over 8 feet (roman feet of course, not British Imperial) and 1 finger, meaning roughly 240 centimetres and his thumb was so big he used his wife's dextrocherium (a kind of bracelet) as a ring.

Thrax?

Why is he called Thrax? 72.86.47.226 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The nickname Thrax is a Latin borrowing from ancient Greek, meaning Thracian, which identifies his supposed origin.Oatley2112 (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maximinus Thrax would have been a superb name for a glam rock star, especially with "th" being pronounced the English way and a firm, snappy "R" sound just after that. ;) 195.67.149.165 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing quote from Gibbon

I think that we do not need the pompous "psychogram" of a 18th century historian who based his assumptions on biased pro-senatorial sources. Therefore I removed the quote. Hoping I was not overly bold.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maximinus Thrax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521191250/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

dunno

What special things happened during the time he was ruling? Is there any thing else like interesting to know during the time he was ruling?

seriously

What source claim his ancestors were Carpi? Jordanes Romana says his father was gothic and mother alanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.183.63 (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read Latin sources in actual Latin

Please stop inventing false data on Maximinus reported height from Historia Augusta, it's childish, unnerving and vandalic.

I reported the original Latin source, I don't understand who keeps inventing this false data of 8 feet 6 inches that is not in the stated source and is a fake generated on this very Wikipedia page and slowly spread somewhere else in the Internet. Kanjar (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Here the actual quote from Codex Palatinus 899: "Erat praeterea, ut refert Cordus, magnitudine tanta, ut octo pedes digito videretur egressus, pollice ita vasto, ut uxoris dextrocherio uteretur pro anulo"

It gives us a figure of roughly 239-240cm.

A different Lectio would rather call for six fingers instead of only one and would probably translate to roughly 248cm ca. but from what I know the one in Codex Palatinus is held to be the most correct one.

Kanjar (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ammianus Marcellinus book XXVIII is describing a later Maximinus

Ammianus is describing a politician of the same name during the reign of Valentinian in the following century (so not emperor Maximinus Thrax) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.137.236 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources regarding ascension on March 20?

Just noticed this article being featured in the On this day section of the main page – in fact, it has made the main page on March 20 in several years. Whereabouts is it cited that Maximinus Thrax ascended to the throne on March 20? It's not mentioned in this article, at least! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That date is only one of several estimates, I'm surprised that so many books and sites use it. To come to that date one has to assume that Alexander reigned from 11 March 222 to 19 March 235, completely ignoring the fact that his proclamation is clearly recorded as having been on 13 March 222. If we base ourself on numbers alone, then Maximinus' ascension should have occurred on 22 March 235, but we can't say for sure. He could have been proclaimed a bit earlier, or perhaps a bit later, who knows. Tintero21 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)