For example, to claim that Theodosius set the tone for the next thousand years is to fail to see how the entire western half of the empire crumbled under the equivalent of immigration into those regions by tribes like the Vandals, the Goths, and the Lombards. There was no political stability on an empire level in the west until Charlemagne, and even here it was only within select areas.

One had a relatively stable Visigoth kingdom in the Iberian peninsula, for example, where, interestingly an Arian form of Christianity was defeated through a series of local councils that ultimately brought the king on board. But this did not happen until the 500s. This Visigoth kingdom was brought down first by Justinian’s armies and then finally by the Muslim take over of the Iberian peninsula in the 700s.

Too little of the massive historical shifts are even being taken into consideration here. The only empire Theodosius would have impacted directly (in terms of political continuity) would have been the Byzantine empire, and this is because the Theodosian law codes were taken up and incorporated into Justinian’s code.

I see little value in such generalizations for either side. It would be better to return to the metaphysical issues, or even simply the moral and philosophical frameworks that each side might bring to bear on they modern nation state.