the Roman armies in
return for fixed subsidies. They thus became imperial _foederati_.

*The revolt of Arbogast and Eugenius, 392 A. D.* In 391 Theodosius reduced
the Goths to submission when a revolt of the troops in Britain raised
Magnus Maximus to the purple. Gratian had shown himself a feeble
administrator and had alienated the sympathies of the bulk of his troops
by his partiality towards the Germans in his service. Maximus at once
crossed into Gaul and was confronted by Gratian at Paris. But the latter
was deserted by his army, and was captured and put to death. The authority
of Maximus was now firmly established in Britain, Gaul and Spain. He
demanded and received recognition from Theodosius, who was prevented from
avenging Gratian's death by threatening conditions in the East. The third
Augustus, the young Valentinian II, acquired for the time an independent
sphere of authority in Italy. However, in 387 A. D. Maximus suddenly
crossed the Alps and forced him to take refuge with Theodosius. Having
come to terms with Persia, Theodosius refused to sanction the action of
Maximus and marched against him. The troops of Maximus were defeated, and
he himself captured and executed at Aquileia (388 A. D.). Gaul and the
West were speedily recovered for Theodosius by his general, Arbogast.

*Theodosius and Ambrose.* While Theodosius was at Milan in 390 occurred
his famous conflict with Bishop Ambrose. In a riot at Thessalonica the
commander of the garrison had been killed by the mob, and Theodosius, in
his anger, had turned loose the soldiery upon the citizens, of whom seven
thousand are said to have been butchered. Scarcely had Theodosius issued
the order when he was seized with regret, and endeavored to countermand
it; but it was too late. Upon the news of the massacre, Ambrose excluded
the emperor from his church and refused to admit him to communion until he
had publicly done penance for his sin. For eight months Theodosius refused
to yield, but Ambrose remained obdurate, and the emperor finally humbled
himself and publicly acknowledged his guilt. The question at issue was not
the supremacy of secular or religious authority, but whether the emperor
was subject to the same moral laws as other men. Nevertheless, it required
a high degree of courage for the bishop to assert the right of the church
to pass judgment in such a matter upon the head of the state.

*The revolt of Arbogast and Eugenius, 392 A. D.* In 391 Theodosiu