Julian II (the Apostate) and his policies

[Theodosius the Great]

Virilis,

Well, yes, I think I can see your point of view. Julian is a curiosity if we just look at his character. He wasn't your average lowbrow military Emperor from Illyrian stock. In that narrow sense I can see him belonging to Rome's more glorious times. I'm just not used to analysing Emperors through that prism.

I hope you're able to find a supplier who has a coin of Julian. Flavius Crispus may be able to sell you one. I've personally seen his stock and it's impressive. Just so you know, the coins can range up to several hundred dollars (USD) :o

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

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

Which is indeed why I spilt the post (as anounced earlier) and moved it to the History section.

[Paullus Scipio]

Poor Julian !!
He seems to be getting rather a pasting here, but I notice most of it is being applied with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight !!
Before I take up the cudgels on his behalf, since it has not been mentioned here yet, I take it most of you are familiar with Gore Vidal's famous novel Julian ?? If not you are in for a treat, as it is well written and thoughtful.

[Carlton Bach]

I suspect a lot of this is in reaction to the Gibbon tradition that regarded him as something like the last of the Great Caesars and for whom he could simply do no wrong. Of course, neither position taken to extremes holds up well. Aside from the problem with our sources, to me it seems that Julian was very much a person of his times, Chaste, humble, just, of high personal integrity, emotional, idealistic, impetuous and demanding, had he been a Christian he would have made an admirable bishop or local holy man. As an emperor he wasmn't exactly the best choice, but his century wasn't that rich in good choices and aside from his personal idiosyncrasies I don't think he was a bad emperor or general, just not an exceptionally great one, either.

What would we say of Caesar had he been killed at Gergovia?

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

To add something to what mentioned above and not to pronounce a panegyric, I just like to say that, totally integrated in that initiatic élite who, in the extreme phase of the decadence of the classical and traditional world, preserved the cache of a superior knowledge, Julian understood the deep meaning of the symbols and penetrated the esoteric dimension of the Myth, succeeding to get the full awareness about the transcendent unity of the several traditions.

Really in very few words, for Julian, the unification of all those traditions could and had to coincide with the ideal of the State, of the Empire, of Roma. Under the sign of Helios/ Apollo/ Mithra/ Sol Invictus. Julian's syncretism goes from the most ancient religions and spiritualities, across Homer, Plato, the Mysteria of Eleusys, Mithraism, the greek-roman Pantheon, the neoplatonics Plotinus, Porfirius, and last but not least Giamblicus, the "divine Giamblicus" with whom Julian agreed above all when asserted that just the philosophical inference is not enough to get the trascendent and true knowledge, but according with the theurgy, the ritual practices, if perfectly accomplished, are necessary to keep the Humans "interacting" with the intellegible world.
About the superior order, since the "One", the "Absolute Good", a hierarchy of hypostasis ( the Gods) "proceeds" and allows the continuity from the intellegible and ineffable world of the "One" to the sensible world of the Humans. In this hierarchy, the Sun is the image to whom the ineffable "One" leans on (hoping that the term "lean" be right).
That explains why Julian was so IMO. His right "obsession" for a philosophical, religious and imperial "unity" had a superior purpose: reaching a perfect "Pietas" could get a "perfect" world. The perfect World was represented by the "Imperium Romae" the "Pulchrius Imperium" and its contract with the Gods, or the "One", with a hellenistic point of view.
So, his obsession/mission was the complete "Restauratio Imperii" and he put in this sacred mission all his body and all his soul, not sparing himself. None can tell he did'nt.
Someone accuses him to be just a fanatic and annoying grind, but he was nice, kind, right and at the right moment fun too. Many loved him for his behaviour and manners and after his death, also a christian poet like Prudentius admitted that Julian was a fair, right, good Emperor and brave soldier.
Due to the lack of an imperial colleague and Caesars, someone accuses him to be an "oriental kind" monarch and not a true roman "constitutional King", yes he was the only emperor, but he always told to his Consistorium: "correct me if I'm wrong", and always allowed a fair criticism. This is constitutional enough to me, seen his predecessors.

He served Roma as a Soldier too, in front-line, supporting his soldiers and risking his life, and he was victorious (at Maranga too...).

He was a man of fine and incredibly vast culture, a fine and indefatigable writer always using a simple and effective style.

He was absolutely "pius", and deeply respected any other religion (except for the Christians, above all because the Trinity concept, he considered blasphemous of course)

He suffered a terrible and defamatory christian propaganda, that arrived to define him "the beast". After his death, also a ferocious "damnatio memoriae".

He tried to keep his soul "pure" for all his life.

He was emperor just from 361 to 363 and died (K.I.A.) at 31.

What can one like from an Emperor, more than that?

And what you think the PRIMANI can say? IVLIANE VIVAS! ARGENTORATE!

[S SEVERUS]

The fact that he didn't had a high opinion of the Christians makes him already a great Emperor!!

He suffered a terrible and defamatory christian propaganda

This says it all. Its a pity that Julian didn't last longer.

[Goffredo]

Severus. You wrote
"The fact that he didn't had a high opinion of the Christians makes him already a great Emperor!!"

I find your remark a little foolish. Or were you joking? In that case it would be.... hmm! I fear it still sounds foolish.

[S SEVERUS]

Why foolish? He must have had his reasons not to be a Christian...
Maybe because his relatives were killed by a Christian Emperor en he had to keep a low profile? But that's pure speculation of me.
Fact is also that religious Christian themes or quarrels distracted the "Christian" Emperors a lot!!

[Theodosius the Great]

Fact is also that religious Christian themes or quarrels distracted the "Christian" Emperors a lot!!

That sounds like a hypocritical accusation that until now I would have thought unworthy of you, Severus. The pagan Emperors went out of their way to become ‘distracted’ by the Christians starting with Nero who inaugurated the Empire’s often savage state-sponsored persecution of the faith which would continue periodically over the next 250 years !

To give some context to ‘Christian propaganda’ : Galerius was behind the final and most ferocious effort to diminish or extinguish Christianity which ended with his death in 311 AD. Then 50 years later Julian arrives on the scene reinstituting a milder form of persecution that no one could predict would end with his ill-timed demise two years later. It’s no wonder he terrified Christians and received the press that he did. So Julian to the Christians would be somewhat comparable to someone like Ahmadinejad today who openly threatens to do what Hitler tried to do 65 years ago to the Jewish people.

I can only guess which other arch-persecutors you admire, Severus. Nero, Trajanus Decius, Diocletian, Galerius are all worthy candidates under your criterion to be called ‘Great’.

I suspect a lot of this is in reaction to the Gibbon tradition that regarded him as something like the last of the Great Caesars and for whom he could simply do no wrong.

Carlton is right. Julian has been largely forgotten in popular memory for hundreds if not thousands of years. But since Gibbon’s time, at least, Julian has been lionized by anti-clerics who dominate academia. So, Julian’s reputation has been rehabilitated and whitewashed to a large extent for quite some time. It’s more than a safe bet that he’s more popular with academia than his uncle Constantine the Great.

Of course, neither position taken to extremes holds up well.

Agreed. I can and did cite his good qualities. Though I would still say he made a bad emperor all things considered. Come to think of it I think he made a better general hock:


~Theo

[S SEVERUS]

Hmmm Galerius. Not a great emperor because he revoked his own edict. roll:

Diocletian was indeed a great emperor for the things he achieved after the anarchy period. But that's for another topic.

So Julian to the Christians would be somewhat comparable to someone like Ahmadinejad today who openly threatens to do what Hitler tried to do 65 years ago to the Jewish people.

You can't compare this to something of 2000 year's ago. The moral standard were completely different. The persecution of the Christians from Nero's time to Julian wasn't like that at all!! It was no genocide.

[Goffredo]

You throw a stone and then hide the hand?

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Hum, wait a moment, what did Severus say?

The fact that he didn't had a high opinion of the Christians makes him already a great Emperor!!

What is there of so incredible and foolish? He did not say that a great emperor is so just if loves to kill or torture the Christians for a simple capriccio, nor that in his opinion a great emperor is so when he promotes religious persecutions due to faith/unfaith matter!

So?

Everyone of us can not have an high opinion of someone or many other in the everyday life, where is the crime? I did not know it was prohibited...

While I can easily see the Severus' words in a political way: seen that the Romans did not persecute anyone for religious reasons, being very tolerant towards any religion (Hebraism too) often integrating them, but of course persecuted any politically subversive act and the Christians acted so.

The public cult of the traditional roman religion and the concept of State were a single thing in the roman world, sacrificing to the Gods and respecting the rites meant to estabilish a covenant with the Divinity and Deities, in return for his protection. While any other religion could integrate that, the Christians refused to sacrifice to the traditional roman Deitites, putting themselves in antithesis towards the roman State/Imperium and so acting politically.

Roma could not permit that. That could not be accepted by the traditional Romans, because it undermined the very foundations of the concept itself of the roman State. In fact then Christians subverted the traditional roman State/Imperium creating something that they called "roman" but it was not really so.

Valete,

[S SEVERUS]

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS - I agree. You express completely what i wanted to tell. But my writing of english is not that good to express it. :oops:
Thank you very much.

[Robert Vermaat]

Interesting discussion so far folks, but let's stay alert about not making religion the main topic of this. :?

I suspect a lot of this is in reaction to the Gibbon tradition that regarded him as something like the last of the Great Caesars and for whom he could simply do no wrong.

Carlton is right. Julian has been largely forgotten in popular memory for hundreds if not thousands of years. But since Gibbon’s time, at least, Julian has been lionized by anti-clerics who dominate academia. So, Julian’s reputation has been rehabilitated and whitewashed to a large extent for quite some time. It’s more than a safe bet that he’s more popular with academia than his uncle Constantine the Great.

Although I can't say what influence Gibbon had on Julian's modern popularity, I disagree with the notion that Julian had been forgotten for thousands of years. I mean, that would also mean that the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus - Julian's greatest fan - would also have been forgotten. That I can't accept.

Was Julian forgotten in popular memory? Sure. And he still is. But then popular memory only knows Julius, not Julian, nor any of the others.

[S SEVERUS]

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.

So Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius did't have a heir either and that's bad? Hmmm what about Marcus his son Commodus? If I understand you correctly Julian was wrong not to produce a heir? I don't agree with you here...