Julian II (the Apostate) and his policies

[Goffredo]

Ciao Titus
I frankly think what you say is not what Severus was saying even though he claims that what he meant. You are putting too many interesting points into what was probably just a burp from Severus. It is fashionable to christian bash these days. Criticize christians if you like but don't do because others do.

Regards Severus' sentence ask for a poll to see how many see in it what you say. Even if you try to contextualize what he wrote previosuly the sentence stands out as just lame.

a presto

[S SEVERUS]

Goffredo,

Of course it was what I meant. You don't have to make a poll for something like that. That would be to silly. :roll:
We are discussing Julian and the period he was living in and if that means being critic about the Christians (their writings and so)in his time so what, it's part of the discussion. Julian did get a bad press from Christian writers.

But I will follow Vortigern and not let this going to far.

[Theodosius the Great]

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!

It sounded that way when Severus made his statement and I responded accordingly. Thank you, Titus, for clearing that up. But the statement is still wrong as I just cited Emperors who were not great and persecuted Christians.

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.

I agree and disagree. I've address these points on a previous thread and I shouldn't repeat my response here since this is off-topic. But I'll be happy to pursue this topic further elsewhere if you like, Titus, since it's an interest of mine too.

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.

Agreed. My comments were strictly limited to popular consciousness. I'm sorry if my comments weren't explicit enough. But Julian's memory was brought to some public attention during the nineteenth century as evidenced by paintings of him that were commissioned. Granted, exposure to the public of his existence must have been extremely limited but the misguided motivation behind the effort is what I object to.

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...

Having no heir-apparent is bad. It fosters political instability especially among the Army. The only Emperors from the period you mention who had no sons and adopted heirs are Nerva and Hadrian. Hadrian claimed that Trajan adopted him but we don't know if that was true. And Hadrian arranged for Antonius and Marcus Aurelius to succeed him. Antoninus had no say on his successor.

The adoptions of Trajan by Nerva and of Antoninus and Marcus by Hadrian were both adhoc occurrences. There was no system or method involved such as a "meritocracy" as some have suggested.

But if an Emperor has a son then everyone is assured of a peaceful transition of power to next ruler, generally speaking.

Commodus from what I have read doesn't seem to have been all that bad. The historian Cassius Dio thought him to be a competent ruler. He did rule for 12 years constantly putting down palace and senatorial plots. And he successfully incorporated into the Empire some of the tribes that his father fought against. But his main fault was the same as Julian's : he had no heir-apparent.

Julian did nothing to preserve his dynasty - which was the most successful dynasty in Roman history since the Julio-Claudians.

~Theo

[S SEVERUS]

And he successfully incorporated into the Empire some of the tribes that

Which one?? He just give up al the work his father had done!

The adoptions of Trajan by Nerva and of Antoninus and Marcus by Hadrian were both adhoc occurrences. There was no system or method involved such as a "meritocracy" as some have suggested.

I agree that is was adhoc but having a heir was not a guarantee also for stability. It was simply to easy to usurp the heir.
eg Numerianus, Gallienus, ...

And Constantines dynasty succesfull? In what way? Producing 3 sons and give them each a share so they can battle each other?

Fact is that the Romans never had a constitutionalized form of transfer the power from the dead ruler to the new ruler and that was the big problem!

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Ciao Jeff, maybe do I trust neighbour? Anyway I still think that Severus did not mean to attack the Christians coarsely for bare religious reasons, (BTW, did you read the forum rules, Severus? In RAT any consideration about politics and religion it's prohibited if not technically related to the matters of this forum), even if it did not look like a real attack after all, meaning probably he does not love the Christians' policy, rather that he hate them, not to be said here anyway, to avoid any misunderstandings. But I repeat, that's not so grave. In fact, no Mods tackled him after his assertion (or burp as you say).
Jeff, you are a RAT veteran since 2001, I'm since 2002, so we have seen almost everyone here growing in all senses or disappearing, newcomers were often reckless, but many became good guys. Mowing in a rusty way a newcomer, who then can admit his little mistake, ought be avoided if he shows goodwill, while sometimes I sadly saw worst behaviours that gone unnoticed. Nobody is perfect, as we all.

Con amicizia.

Salue Theo, yes, it's incredible how many passions can still generate the great apostata! shock:

Vale,

[Robert Vermaat]

And he successfully incorporated into the Empire some of the tribes that

Which one?? He just give up al the work his father had done!

I don't know who you're quoting here, but he's right. Julian srttled the Franks who had overrun Germania II succesfully in northern Gaul. These Franks were never troublesome again, defended the borders where they lived and a hundred years later took over when the Roman administration finally fell apart. Their wish to emulate the Romans means that French is now spoken in France, not German and Celtic.

Whose father do you mean? Julian's? What work did he actually do?
Julius Constantius was the son of Theodora and her husband Constantius I , and the half-brother of the Emperor Constantine I. He seems to have spent his youth under house arrest in Tolosa, and later in Corinth. Constantius did not outlive brother Constantine by much because he perished in the imperial purges of 337. So what work are you referring to?

And Constantines dynasty succesfull? In what way? Producing 3 sons and give them each a share so they can battle each other?

Fact is that the Romans never had a constitutionalized form of transfer the power from the dead ruler to the new ruler and that was the big problem!

Oh, we agree there! Constnatine's dynasty may have been suucessful in changing tghe face of Late Roman society (introducing and strengthening Christianity helped post-Roman Europe a lot later on), but the seeds of destruction were there as well - the purge of 337 killed most of the family off, and child emperors became the root of much evil when, instead of adoption of strong sons, the troops demanded a dynastic line, even though such weaklings like Honorius or Valentinian III became emperor! In the end, these weakling gave rise to strong men behind the throne, Romans, euneuchs then, barbarians later. And what had to follow did of course follow - at one point the powerless figurehead called emperor was sent home to his mommy, and the generalissimo became to first post-Roman king. Exit Western Empire.

[S SEVERUS]

Commodus from what I have read doesn't seem to have been all that bad. The historian Cassius Dio thought him to be a competent ruler. He did rule for 12 years constantly putting down palace and senatorial plots. And he successfully incorporated into the Empire some of the tribes that his father fought against. But his main fault was the same as Julian's : he had no heir-apparent.

Vortigern, I was referring to this quote. I don't think Commodus incorporated tribes into the empire.

[geala]

That Julian was against Christianity could possibly indeed be an argument to name him a "great emperor". It depends on the interpretation of the role of Christianity in the fall of the empire.

I believe that it was an important factor but that is a matter of debate and perhaps should not be discussed here. But Julian could not have succeded in his fight against Christendom even if he had lived longer, so the fight would have only added another point of hate and distrust to the religious world which was already in such a bad state. So no great emperor.

Julian was a man of his time (surprising...): he was also a firm and mysterious believer like many of his Christian counterparts. That was not the way of the religion of the ancient world, being more formal and in the duty of the state, but tolerant, interchangable and empty in a certain way. No chance to go back to the old times, no chance to get back the affairs of this world in the centre of focus. The future was not his and the ancient world had to die (or was already dead).

[Theodosius the Great]

Vortigern, I was referring to this quote. I don't think Commodus incorporated tribes into the empire.

Quite right, Severus. I stand corrected. Sometimes I get my Emperors confused. However, our most reliable source about Commodus is not found in that dubious collection of stories called the Historia Augusta but rather from Cassius Dio who was a contemporary of the Emperor. Dio approved of Commodus as an Emperor despite his many failings. The legions did not seek to overthrow him although there were some minor mutinies.

If an Emperor is popular with the army then it's a given that the army will accept his biological son as his designated sucessor. Rule of thumb : the army loves dynastic succession.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Constnatine's dynasty may have been suucessful in changing tghe face of Late Roman society (introducing and strengthening Christianity helped post-Roman Europe a lot later on), but the seeds of destruction were there as well

Well, I wasn't even speaking in those terms when I said "successful" but simply that the Constantinian dynasty lasted longer than any other since the extinction of the Julio-Claudians.

And Constantines dynasty succesfull? In what way? Producing 3 sons and give them each a share so they can battle each other?

Speaking strictly from the dynast's point of view, it was the most sucessful dynasty in 300 years. And people tend to forget that Constantine was NOT the founder of his dynasty. His father, Constantius, began the dynasty in 293 AD and lasted until Julian the Apostate's death in 363 AD. So, 70 years of an imperial family ruling at least parts of the Empire. Doesn't that sound successful ?

Furthermore, you don't see major uprisings against the family of Constantine after the defeat of Lincinius. The armies were loyal to the dynasty. So, establishing a real dynasty created political stability. True, you had civil wars between Constantine's heirs but no usurpers are able to gain any significant support. Civil wars between two Emperors of the same dynasty is better than civil wars between two usurpers since that may lead to endless wars like the crisis that ensued during the mid 200s AD.

[Theodosius the Great]

the purge of 337 killed most of the family off, and child emperors became the root of much evil when, instead of adoption of strong sons, the troops demanded a dynastic line, even though such weaklings like Honorius or Valentinian III became emperor! In the end, these weakling gave rise to strong men behind the throne, Romans, euneuchs then, barbarians later. And what had to follow did of course follow - at one point the powerless figurehead called emperor was sent home to his mommy, and the generalissimo became to first post-Roman king. Exit Western Empire.

Vortigern, you're not attibuting the fall of the West to the aftermath of 337 AD, are you ? Afaik, the army was still in good shape all the way until the battle of Adrianople. So, Valens is where the decline of the empire starts, imo.

That was not the way of the religion of the ancient world, being more formal and in the duty of the state, but tolerant, interchangable and empty in a certain way. No chance to go back to the old times, no chance to get back the affairs of this world in the centre of focus. The future was not his and the ancient world had to die (or was already dead).

If you read enough history (not just about Rome) you will see that great calamities always change society. Calamities like the Third Century Crisis changed how pagans saw and practiced religion. Religious attitudes certainly changed after the Black Death of the 14th century in Europe. Things are ever changing, never static.

~Theo

[geala]

Yes, I concur. And the great famine of the 2nd c. AD is not to forget. I don't want to blame Julian for his believe, but he would never have been able to restore the classical state and the classical religion.

And I think the classical world (not the Roman empire) starts to die in the 2nd c. AD at least. The principate itself as early as in the Augusteian time forced a change of mind by the leading classes which led to the end of classical thinking and urban political culture in the longer run. This is a very abstract discussion however.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I don't want to blame Julian for his believe, but he would never have been able to restore the classical state and the classical religion.

I'd like to know why you are so sure. Could you explain?

Vale,

[Robert Vermaat]

the purge of 337 killed most of the family off, and child emperors became the root of much evil when, instead of adoption of strong sons, the troops demanded a dynastic line, even though such weaklings like Honorius or Valentinian III became emperor! In the end, these weakling gave rise to strong men behind the throne, Romans, euneuchs then, barbarians later. And what had to follow did of course follow - at one point the powerless figurehead called emperor was sent home to his mommy, and the generalissimo became to first post-Roman king. Exit Western Empire.

Vortigern, you're not attibuting the fall of the West to the aftermath of 337 AD, are you ? Afaik, the army was still in good shape all the way until the battle of Adrianople. So, Valens is where the decline of the empire starts, imo.

Jaime, this was not abbout any military causes, but the political ones - dynastic instability became one of the curses of the Late Roman state, especially during the 5th c. when ther emperor became virtually powerless.

Military I'd say you are right. :wink:

[geala]

I don't want to blame Julian for his believe, but he would never have been able to restore the classical state and the classical religion.

I'd like to know why you are so sure. Could you explain?

Vale,

Who can be sure about alternative history?

Especially on this level of abstraction. For every argument and conclusion you can find a contradiction. But ok, I will say something about my point of view. One of the many developments away from classical antiquity was the growing need for transcendency and personal religions. It started already in the 2nd c. BC and affected the scientific thinking and also the interest in the res publica/ polis on the longer run.

Christianity had just one of the best "products" to answer this hunger. No other religion of the time had such a complete and nice package to offer the desparate individual. Sol invictus f.e. was a relatively clinical figure compared to Christus. Imagine the incredible effect of the thought that God himself walked in history and saved the people (if you believe it it is more than anybody else had).
Additionally Christianity had a strong organisation, brilliant intellectual support and an aggressive behavior towards other believes. It had a fast growing base of devotees even before Constantines helping hands. After Nicaea the furious fights within Christendom ebbt a little bit, making the mainstream stronger than before. So my believe is that in the middle of the 4th c. AD Christianity was already too strong to be subdued. A tolerance on the other hand would have been a difficult task because no other religion was possible beneath Christianity, had it only achieved a critical mass and therefore a certain might.

Beneath religion the classical political ethos had nearly ceased at that time. It would have been a very difficult task to revive it in the structures of the Dominate. The future belongs to the absolute state in the form of the Christian Byzantine Empire and the near-feudal structures, where no longer the private interests seek completion in the state but the "state" becomes a private affair.

So there was no real mental base for the fight against Christianity. With military suppression alone a struggle for the minds and souls of the people was not to win.