Julian II (the Apostate) and his policies

[Iulus]

Yes,he surely was/is an interesting person!But most people don't even know he existed.Quite remarkable! roll: Well,whatever,I'm glad you don't want to drill a hole in an original coin.I have a coin stamped under the reign of Julian the Apostate and I assure you : it would probably not even work (well,at least it wouldn't look very nice),because many of these coins are pretty small and unless you take a silver or gold one,they have a patina,which doesn't makes them very handsome in the eyes of most modern observers.Besides: they didn't look like that in ancient times!

[Theodosius the Great]

The Empire was crumbling at the time of Julian the Apostate ? Peter Heather's new book "The Fall of the Roman Empire" states that before Adrianople that the Empire's economy was not in decline, in fact it was booming. The army too was far larger than those of earlier times at any period (except maybe in times of the Republic's civil wars.) The Empire was strong enough to withstand emperors like Julian, who I see as a walking fiasco in everything he did as sole emperor. His religious and foreign policies produced nothing but internal and external discord for the Empire. The only real redeeming quality of his reign that I see seems to be his reduction of taxes and his attempt to reduce bureaucratic corruption (which everyone tried to do) and the size of the court. On balance he was a net minus for the Empire and appears to be more in mold of Nero. Both emperor's ensured their dynasty's end by not siring any heirs and their foreign policies jeopardized the security of the Empire, Imo. To compare Julian to Pius who pursued peaceful policies and internal harmony doesn't appear seemly to me. Where's the comparison ?

BTW, in my group we have a Roman coin dealer : Flavius Crispus. Yes, our own Flavius Crispus here on RAT. You can send him a PM or I can get in touch with him if you like, Virilis.

~Theo

[Virilis]

The Empire was crumbling at the time of Julian the Apostate ? Peter Heather's new book "The Fall of the Roman Empire" states that before Adrianople that the Empire's economy was not in decline, in fact it was booming. The army too was far larger than those of earlier times at any period (except maybe in times of the Republic's civil wars.) The Empire was strong enough to withstand emperors like Julian, who I see as a walking fiasco in everything he did as sole emperor. His religious and foreign policies produced nothing but internal and external discord for the Empire. The only real redeeming quality of his reign that I see seems to be his reduction of taxes and his attempt to reduce bureaucratic corruption (which everyone tried to do) and the size of the court. On balance he was a net minus for the Empire and appears to be more in mold of Nero. Both emperor's ensured their dynasty's end by not siring any heirs and their foreign policies jeopardized the security of the Empire, Imo. To compare Julian to Pius who pursued peaceful policies and internal harmony doesn't appear seemly to me. Where's the comparison ?

BTW, in my group we have a Roman coin dealer : Flavius Crispus. Yes, our own Flavius Crispus here on RAT. You can send him a PM or I can get in touch with him if you like, Virilis.

~Theo

I can see your point, Theo! I have read Heather`s book too and although it is a good book it really brings nothing new to the subject in my opinion. In addition I don`t look Julian as a point of view of the survival struggle of the roman empire. I was speaking of him in a kind of "shakespearean" sense, in an existential point of view if you like :wink: ! He was not a very good military leader but it is not easy to put aside his succesful querilla-warfare around the river Rhein, battle of Strasbourg etc. In all he is a very INTERESTING person if not a blessing to the roman empire as a whole :wink: !

[Robert Vermaat]

On balance he was a net minus for the Empire and appears to be more in mold of Nero. Both emperor's ensured their dynasty's end by not siring any heirs and their foreign policies jeopardized the security of the Empire, Imo.

Erm... Julian continued what his cousin Constantius had set up. Was it Julian's fault that most if not all direct relatives had been 'purged' by his dear cousins? The war with Persia was also a direct inheritance from Constantius, who in fact been draining the military with some not-too-successful campaigns in that quarter, had planned this campaign beforehand - it was not Julian's foreign policy! Sure, Julian could have settled with Persia in return for a huge tribute, but then I'm sure he would have been blasted for being a coward. Also, it seems to have been the only way forward in getting himself accepted in the East.
I disagree, btw, about your comparing his attempts to reduce bureaucracy and corrption with the efforts of his predecessors. "They all did that" is not quite a correct comparison. Julian did a lot more. Under Constantius, they court had become enormous, and unaccessible. he at least tried to redress that, and throw out a huge number of empty-headed good-for-nothing courtiers.

No, I'm not a huge fan of Julian, but he díd regain Gaul with a small force, then re-created all kinds of new units for the army which apparently did very well. Not a great general, but good and especially lucky enough until it ran out (reminds me of Caesar).
His main mistake is that he did not recognise the sign of the times in case of religion (Constantine I sure did, as did others). This alienated him from too many people who would have loved or at least accepted him.

Hmm.. Maybe we should set up a new discussion about Julian in the proper place? :wink:

[Virilis]

Robert, I agree with you totally! Julian inherited much of the conditions from his predecessors he had to deal with (Rheine & Persian situation, bureaugracy, taxation etc.) In fact I am just now reading Ammianus Marcellinus`s history again. Although there are the usual panegyrical elements in the history it is a great and surprisingly balanced reading (when put into the proper context).

This thing about Julian`s luck running out... I wonder if he had some kind of "death-wish" inherent in him. I mean the several cases he carelessly rushed into the battle as if trying to prove something. Propably this picture is painted afterwards by Ammianus to make the death of Julian more understandable. We humans tend to think about great events in life as a part of some greater narratives :wink: . In fact it is hard for me to understand somebody not feeling some sympathy for this tragic figure :wink: ...

[Iulus]

To compare Julian to Pius who pursued peaceful policies and internal harmony doesn't appear seemly to me. Where's the comparison ?

I didn't compare their policies! I just said that both are in contrast to emperors like Trajan,or Augustus often forgotten,because they lack the military success that seems to be so important for many people today.Caesar for example wouldn't be so famous today,if he hadn't conquered Gaul!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Who could forget Pius? hock:

Now Julian........

[Virilis]

JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN! JULIAN!

[Robert Vermaat]

Who could forget Pius? hock:
Now Julian........

Pius who? What century?

[Virilis]

Pius? A name sounding like someone letting air :twisted: ...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The one and only Antoninus :!: hock: hock:

Could there be another? Daddy of the Antonines......paw of Marcus Aurelius :? ? roll:

[Theodosius the Great]

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.

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

[Caius Fabius]

this is getting a bit far from the marketlace..... :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

True! :lol: But the link has me thinking of starting a coin collection for re-enacting purposes!

[Virilis]

Theo, you`re right but you are looking Julian from the point of view of the abstract concept called "the roman empire"and especially it`s continuation in mind. What for me is interesting in Julians character is an existential point of view; individual "thrown" in the world in a specific time in history (sorry for this vulgar "sartreism" :wink: ). That is what is special & interesting in Julian for me. I don`t look for types like this but those aspects stand out so clearly in Julians character in my opinion...