Nonetheless, most classicists accept at least the basic account of the massacre, although they continue to dispute when it happened, who was responsible for it, what motivated it, and what impact it had on subsequent events.
Most scholars agree that Emperor Theodosius the Great played at least some role in either ordering or permitting the massacre, although others contend that the soldiers simply got out of control.
Mark Hebblewhite, ancient historian at Macquarie University, explains that the emperor Valens had just died, along with much of the eastern army, at the 378 Battle of Adrianople leaving the empire exposed to the barbarian threat.
Boniface Ramsey says Roman society was becoming less urban centered and more rural as the great days of the cities were gone, the middle class was increasingly stressed, and the situation of the poor was dire.
[2]: 12 Hebblewhite says Theodosius was a Latin speaking westerner and a Nicene Christian when he became ruler of the religiously mixed, Greek-speaking East, yet he still managed to leave an indelible mark on history.
[2]: 16 [5] But Emperor Gratian wrote a letter praising the appropriateness of Rome appointing individuals who had demonstrated they were worthy, and Ambrose's host gave him up.
[6]: 90 As bishop, he adopted an ascetic lifestyle, donated his money to the poor and his land to the church, excepting only what was required to make provision for his sister Marcellina.
[8] John Curran writes one description of events in The Cambridge Ancient History: "In 390, Butheric, the garrison commander of Illyricum which included Thessalonica, was lynched by a mob of citizens in a dispute over the detention of a charioteer.
Theodosius decided that a clear demonstration of his anger was required and in April 390, when the citizens of Thessalonica had gathered in the circus of their town, the emperor’s troops were let loose.
[10]: 215–216 Washburn adds that the exact date of the massacre is unknown and disputed, but general consensus places it in the spring or summer of 390 AD.
[11]: 91 [12] Stanislav Doležal, philosopher at the University of South Bohemia, says the name "Butheric" indicates he might very well have been a Goth, and that the general's ethnicity "could have been" a factor in the riot, but none of the early sources actually say so.
[11]: 91 The biggest problem, according to Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, is not the absence of information, it is that the story of the Massacre of Thessalonica moved into art and literature in the form of legend almost immediately.
[10]: 215 [6]: 316 Stanislav Doležal says these problems begin with the sources not being contemporaneous; instead, they come from the fifth century church historians Sozomen, Theodoret the bishop of Cyrrhus, Socrates of Constantinople and Rufinus.
[11]: 90–91 All these accounts are plausible, but they also had a method and purpose that makes Washburn question them: they were written "to evoke appreciation for ecclesial action and imperial piety".
[10]: 218 McLynn explains that this political event was quickly transformed in the Christian historiography of the time into a moral lesson where "the surviving sources always present the story... in the context of Theodosius' repentance".
[10]: 223 Historian G. W. Bowersock, and authors Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell think that Theodosius ordered the massacre in an excess of "volcanic anger", "choler" and "wrath".
It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.
He references Peter Brown, who points to the empire's established process of decision making, which required the emperor "to listen to his ministers" before acting.
[11]: 98 Ambrose, Paulinus, Augustine and Theodoret, (but not Rufinus or Sozomen) either imply or openly declare that the Emperor was somehow misled or duped in his decision by his officials.
[11]: 95 Ambrose is quite enigmatic, speaking of the “deceit of others”, which caused the Emperor’s guilt (deflevit in ecclesia publice peccatum suum, quod ei aliorum fraude obrepserat), while Paulinus only mentions some “secret negotiations of the officers with the Emperor”, with which Augustine concurs, adding that Theodosius was “compelled by the urgency of certain of his intimates” (tumultu quorundam, qui ei cohaerebant).
Sozomen is very specific, Doleźal adds, saying that in response to the riot, the soldiers made random arrests in the hippodrome to perform public executions there, and the citizenry objected.
"The soldiers, realizing that they were surrounded by angry citizens, perhaps panicked and did what they were trained to: they forcibly cleared the hippodrome at the cost of several thousands of lives of local inhabitants.
[11]: 103, 104 McLynn says Theodosius was “unable to impose discipline upon the faraway troops [and] was compelled by the much-proclaimed myth of imperial omnipotence to accept [responsibility for the massacre himself].
Whatever the reason for his absence, sources agree Ambrose hadn't been there to offer counsel when the riot and massacre occurred, nor was he present in its immediate aftermath.
[6]: 107–109 Ambrose urges a semi-public penitence, using the example of David and Uriah, telling the emperor that he cannot give Theodosius communion until he demonstrates repentance for the massacre.
Wolf Liebeschuetz says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion".
[19]: 262 From the time Edward Gibbon wrote his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ambrose' action after–the–fact has been cited as an example of the church's dominance over the state in Antiquity.
[6]: 292 Washburn says the image of the mitered prelate braced in the door of the cathedral in Milan blocking Theodosius from entering is a product of the imagination of Theodoret; he wrote of the events of 390 (probably sometime between 449 and 455) "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".