06-29-2007, 07:49 PM
Virilis, Vortigern, et Iulus :
Yes, I know Julian was continuing his cousin’s policy against Persia. You could even say he was continuing a dynastic policy since Constantine initiated it. The larger point is that Julian wasn’t apt to carry it out. He should have recognized his limitations, imo. Being accused of cowardice would have left a more positive legacy than the one he left which resulted in loss of territory. Paying tribute is infinitely preferable which was not uncommon practice among the Romans. If Julian needed to become accepted in the East he could have chosen some Balkin people to target instead (not to mention abandon his alienating religious policies in the heavily Christian Greek East of all places !)
Julian’s (i.e. Constantine’s) eastern policy may have been sound, but its implementation was miscarried. Another example of this, I think, is Valen’s policy toward the Visigoths. Allowing them to settle within the Empire as subjects to work the farms and join the army was sound, imo. But the policy was mishandled, to put it mildly, and resulted in the disaster of Adrianople.
As for not leaving an heir, no it isn’t Julian’s fault that his cousins were fratricidal maniacs but this is beside the point. One could say the same about Nero whose predecessors murdered familial rivals as well. The inescapable truth is that it is the duty of every monarch is to sire his own heir. Depending on nephews, uncles, and cousins should be a fallback position and not the rule. Nero, Domitian, and Commodus had no excuses either and I’m just as critical of them for failing in their dynastic duty. To boot, Julian worked up the nerve to accuse his uncle of being homosexual. Constantine managed to sire a large brood whereas Julian’s lack of one would seem to cast suspicion on him of the same charge he laid on his uncle.
Yes, curbing the size of the bureaucracy was a new and bold approach to tackling the growing problem of corruption which was probably the most admirable thing Julian attempted to do. He went further than anyone else in this generational effort. Unfortunately, the little good that Julian did wasn’t of any lasting effect. The same can’t be said of his failure against Persia.
At best I can see Julian as being quixotic as the last pagan Emperor. The only thing crumbling around him before he became sole Augustus was paganism. What I got from Heather’s book was that Rome’s fall was not a long drawn out process spanning centuries (the traditional view) rather that it came suddenly and lasted for decades.
Thank you for clarifying, Iulus. I thought I detected some moral equivalence but citing Pius was just a random example as it turns out.
~Theo
Yes, I know Julian was continuing his cousin’s policy against Persia. You could even say he was continuing a dynastic policy since Constantine initiated it. The larger point is that Julian wasn’t apt to carry it out. He should have recognized his limitations, imo. Being accused of cowardice would have left a more positive legacy than the one he left which resulted in loss of territory. Paying tribute is infinitely preferable which was not uncommon practice among the Romans. If Julian needed to become accepted in the East he could have chosen some Balkin people to target instead (not to mention abandon his alienating religious policies in the heavily Christian Greek East of all places !)
Julian’s (i.e. Constantine’s) eastern policy may have been sound, but its implementation was miscarried. Another example of this, I think, is Valen’s policy toward the Visigoths. Allowing them to settle within the Empire as subjects to work the farms and join the army was sound, imo. But the policy was mishandled, to put it mildly, and resulted in the disaster of Adrianople.
As for not leaving an heir, no it isn’t Julian’s fault that his cousins were fratricidal maniacs but this is beside the point. One could say the same about Nero whose predecessors murdered familial rivals as well. The inescapable truth is that it is the duty of every monarch is to sire his own heir. Depending on nephews, uncles, and cousins should be a fallback position and not the rule. Nero, Domitian, and Commodus had no excuses either and I’m just as critical of them for failing in their dynastic duty. To boot, Julian worked up the nerve to accuse his uncle of being homosexual. Constantine managed to sire a large brood whereas Julian’s lack of one would seem to cast suspicion on him of the same charge he laid on his uncle.
Yes, curbing the size of the bureaucracy was a new and bold approach to tackling the growing problem of corruption which was probably the most admirable thing Julian attempted to do. He went further than anyone else in this generational effort. Unfortunately, the little good that Julian did wasn’t of any lasting effect. The same can’t be said of his failure against Persia.
At best I can see Julian as being quixotic as the last pagan Emperor. The only thing crumbling around him before he became sole Augustus was paganism. What I got from Heather’s book was that Rome’s fall was not a long drawn out process spanning centuries (the traditional view) rather that it came suddenly and lasted for decades.
Quote:I didn't compare their policies! I just said that both are in contrast to emperors like Trajan,or Augustus often forgotten...
Thank you for clarifying, Iulus. I thought I detected some moral equivalence but citing Pius was just a random example as it turns out.
~Theo
Jaime
