Julian II (the Apostate) and his policies

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I'll avoid to enter the religious aspects of Christianism because it cannot be discussed in RAT, so I'll limit myself within the political aspects of the discussion. If you like to go to "religious" we can do it by PMs.

Additionally Christianity had a strong organisation,

True.

brilliant intellectual support

Not true.
Nor in absolute, because where an intellectual support exists is practically copied from classical and "pagan" sources, nor if compared to the whole corpus of the "pagan" one, greatly superior.

and an aggressive behavior towards other believes.

Yes, that's absolutely true.

It had a fast growing base of devotees even before Constantines helping hands.

That's oversized by the christian authors.

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.

That's not true, Christians were so few yet, compared to the "Pagans" especially in the countryside of the Empire, in 399, in the Codex Theodosianus, was said to destroy the remaining pagan temples in the countryside, and Honorius in 408 said the same. They felt the need of destroying pagan temples by law in 408 yet! And we know that "Paganism" was diffused enough to worry the Christians till a lot of years after. Julian, when Emperor, went with the bishop Pegasius to the Herôon of Hector, to the Athena Ilia, and finally to the Achilleion, found them still perfectly maintained. Pagans were a lot yet, just they were less fanatic and violent than the Christians, so less visible. A man like Iulianus, an Emperor with a faithful army (let's not forget it), could easily be their new leader and give with very good chances strenght to their resistance. Exactly like Costantinus give strenght to the Christians. So, Christianity was not already too strong, it was just already screaming a lot.

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.

Iulianus' project was about an absolute but liberal and just State, so perfect for the times as well.

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.

Exactly, Iulianus' project was not based on military suppression.
In my opinion the truth is that if Iulianus was not hit at the back (and not by a persian), and seen his incredible skills, practical and spiritual, he would have had good chances to make a conservative revolution up to invert the christian trend/fashion.

Vale,

[geala]

You see what I meant when talking about the difficult discussion. :wink:

First I think it is not a discussion about the truth and worth of religions (not possible) but the historical dimension. Maybe some believers don't like the fact that religions are historical constructions. But to examinate this is at least Christian custom itself even if the results are doubts about religious "truths" (some other religions dare not to do this); it would be rather strange if this could not be discussed.

I estimate the number of Christians in the middle of the 4th c. AD to about 25-30% of the population. They never formed the majority and had to use suppression after becoming the official religion under Theodosius. But the rest of the population were not "the pagans", united against Christendom, but showed great diversity. The Christians formed by far the most powerful and organized part. And a tolerant pagan agenda would not have succeeded. What had it to offer to cope with the Christian promises? Many of the more philosophical pagan religions were only for a elite, many of the simpler pagan cults lacked the deep substance. So, although I have some sympathy for Julian, I really doubt his success.

Btw, I think the pro-Christian writers of the 3rd and 4th century were brilliant (in the restricted limits of the time). They were at the height of intellectual and philosophical standards and able to fight the pagan counterparts at least at the same level. Their strength was of course that they used the classical philosophical thoughts and methods.

[S SEVERUS]

I agree with TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS. Christianity was't dominant in the 4the century but was very well organized. Problem with the pagans that they were divided and too tolerant.
But was'nt the cult of Mithras as strong as Christianity in the 4th century or was is too concentrated in the military?

[L C Cinna]

I'm sorry but I just HAVE to say something here and sorry for being a bit OT:

Julian and persecution of Christians?

that's what someone here said (guess it was Theodosius)

Julian did not persecute Christians. the christians even protested that they were NOT persecuted so they had no martyrs to show.

This is a very very bad topic really. One of the great misbeliefes still prominent today.

One should take a closer look at the so called persecutions:

Nero? No persecution of Christians at all. Some people were executed after an unusually long investigation and trials. The majority of Christians in Rome were not even touched! The people finally executed were Christians AND others. If you consider the nature of some early christians they might even really be connected not with starting the fire but with riots during the fire. Once again, there was no persecution or laws against christians at all!

And what about the "great" persecutions? Diocletian a.s.o.? Churches closed, some confiscations. nothing in the most parts of the empire.

90% of the martyr stories are fiction (and some of it even pretty bad fiction)

I don't say no christians were killed but most in local riots, few during persecutions. and as I said before most of the cruel stories are christian inventions. It starts with Peter and Paul. It's disputable that the first ever WAS in Rome, the 2nd probably died in bed. besides he was a Roman citizen and a crucifiction would have been very very unlikely, especially for what he did. he was part of a group which was absolutely unimportant, no matter what the christian authors want you to believe.

The real persecutions started later when the Christian minority attacked people of the old faith. It started with Constantin's son and then got really bad under Theodosius

Theodosius the "Great", the person in history which imho least deserves this title. He actually achieved nothing. His military success was pretty meager, his religious politics a catastrophy and his heirs started the series of most uncapable emperors in the whole history of the Empire. How about that as a comparison?

While not all of Julian's actions were good it's (for such a short reign) some of the best we have for the 3rd and 4th century (besides Severus, Gallienus, Aurelianus, Diocletianus). He was very successful in his campaigns in the West, the Germanic tribes didn't even dare to attack anymore until they recieved message of his death. He rebuilt Gallia which was in a pretty bad state when he came there, after that the economy flourished. His religious acts were not really offensive, what he did was restore property stolen by the christian churches from the temples and stop the church from being favoured by the state. If you call the taking back the measures his predecessors made in favour of the christians a "persecution", ok.

I do agree that he would have had to take care of succession and that something went wrong in his Parthian campaign after the victory at Cthesiphon (the question is what, as this part is missing somehow).

Yes he's in my avatar, but no, I don't think everything was great, but people should stop viewing this all only from a christian perspective, spoiled and covered with lies for centuries.

This is not intended to be an attack on someone's personal faith. believe in whichever god you wish.

[geala]

But nobody said that Julian initiated persecutions. Or did I miss something? However, I really doubt that his wish to establish "the old order" again would have succeeded without suppression of the strong and intolerant Christian side.

Even with suppression there would have been little chance, because the civil moral of the ancient time was long lost. No way to restore it in the suppressing and authoritarian state to which the empire had developed over the years.

[Casmin]

A little besides the point but I've enjoined reading Julian's philosophies on Christianity. He asked questions that people still ask today.

[Theodosius the Great]

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.

Still, I think I have to differ with you even within those parameters. Politically, the post-Tetriarchic Empire was far more stable than in the third century. The third century was a more threatening time to Empire's survival when there were unchecked incurssions occuring simultaneously by both barbarians and Persians, coupled with internal political chaos.

By the end of the Tetriarchy the Empire's borders were secure and it was politcally less fragmented (i.e. West vs. East). Earlier the Empire had been fractured into three or four pieces with many more rebellious generals running amok.

As for dynastic instablility : I just don't see it. The only reason the Emperors became powerless was because Theodosius died suddenly leaving his children to suceed him.

At that point the damage from Adrianople had metastasized to an almost fatal degree for the Empire, IMO. So, I think the decline of the West can only be attributed to military causes and not religious, moral, or politcal ones.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

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 think only Diocletian tried to restore the traditional place of reverence for the Olympian gods. He tried to restore Jupiter's preeminence within the traditional pantheon with Sol Invinctus being subordinated to him.

Ammianus Marcellus himself says that Julian was very superstitious rather than religiously observant.

~Theo

[geala]

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.

Still, I think I have to differ with you even within those parameters. Politically, the post-Tetriarchic Empire was far more stable than in the third century. The third century was a more threatening time to Empire's survival when there were unchecked incurssions occuring simultaneously by both barbarians and Persians, coupled with internal political chaos.

By the end of the Tetriarchy the Empire's borders were secure and it was politcally less fragmented (i.e. West vs. East). Earlier the Empire had been fractured into three or four pieces with many more rebellious generals running amok.

As for dynastic instablility : I just don't see it. The only reason the Emperors became powerless was because Theodosius died suddenly leaving his children to suceed him.

At that point the damage from Adrianople had metastasized to an almost fatal degree for the Empire, IMO. So, I think the decline of the West can only be attributed to military causes and not religious, moral, or politcal ones.

~Theo

A dynastic succession alone is not a guarantee for stability. If you have a child as leader, the quarrel among the advisors can easily lead to disaster. This happened quite often in the medieval times too. Ok, that is the problem with all non-electional forms of rule. The problem was that the Roman emperors could not easily refer to some of the reasons which may make a monarchy more stable (being a God, Gods vice governor on earth or with Gods will at least for example). The Christian propaganda needed some time to come to effect.

In my opinion military, political, economical and social factors can not be seen isolated. A military disaster like Adrianopel can be disastrous for a state only if it has also tremendous political, economical and social problems. And an emotional problem: if enough late Romans would have had a positive attitude towards the state the history would have been different. Rome had seen enough disasters worse than Adrianopel before and she was able to manage.

[Theodosius the Great]

A dynastic succession alone is not a guarantee for stability.

True. Then again, what is ?

If you have a child as leader, the quarrel among the advisors can easily lead to disaster.

Yes, but my point is that even in those circumstances the Empire was still more stable, politically speaking. At least the Empire's energies are less directed internally against domestic enemies.

The problem was that the Roman emperors could not easily refer to some of the reasons which may make a monarchy more stable (being a God, Gods vice governor on earth or with Gods will at least for example). The Christian propaganda needed some time to come to effect.

Again, I see it differently. Christianity seems to have been an instant sauces in stabilizing the Empire. The legions never rebelled against an established Christian dynasty. How many pagan dynasties could boast that ? Even the 5th century "generalissimos" never attempted to seize the Emperorship from a dynast.

In my opinion military, political, economical and social factors can not be seen isolated.

You're right. There's the social aspect that accompanies the military explanation vis-a-vis the decline of the West. I see that Rome was the victim of its own success. After conquering the bulk of Western Europe the Empire was able to accelerate the Romanization of its subjugated populations. Soft living eventually sapped any remnants of virility among the provincials who once provided vital warrior stocks to be tapped for legionary recruitment.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a "positive attitude towards the state" that Late Romans lacked. If it is then I think its unfair to attribute that attitude solely to Late Romans. It was common during most of the Imperial period as opposed to the Republican period.

Rome had seen enough disasters worse than Adrianopel before and she was able to manage.

The last disaster to be seen on such a scale was the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest, 360 years earlier. That was a different time and a different world. Even Augustus didn't have the kind of manpower reserves available to him that the Republic enjoyed during the Punic Wars. He had to resort to conscription and suffered a backlash for doing so. Later Emperors in the fourth century had even more trouble pressing civilians into the army.

Consequently, after Adrianople, the Visigoths were seen as a new pool of warriors to be tapped by the Emperors to be recruited into Roman service. They became indispensable despite the debilitating effects of their de facto independent status.

A disaster like Adrianople almost happened 15 years earlier due to Julian's shoddy generalship. He got his army stuck in a tight spot. His incompetence managed to sever his troops from their supply lines and he compounded the fiasco by failing to capture Ctesiphon. Only 60 years earlier Galerius had managed to capture and sack it. And before him Septimius Severus, Marcus Aurelius and Trajan did the same.

~Theo

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

A disaster like Adrianople almost happened 15 years earlier due to Julian's shoddy generalship. He got his army stuck in a tight spot. His incompetence managed to sever his troops from their supply lines and he compounded the fiasco by failing to capture Ctesiphon. Only 60 years earlier Galerius had managed to capture and sack it. And before him Septimius Severus, Marcus Aurelius and Trajan did the same.

Not so easy Theo... Even if Iulianus was maybe too over-cautious, (but just the winners are always right and it's easy to be wise after the event) his generalship and strategy were not so "shoddy".
Iulianus planned well for his campaign, he provided for a reserve force of thirty thousand plus the Arsaces' force of undetermined size. Moreover, burning the fleet he could count on other twenty thousand men too. About sixty thousand men he needed to besiege Ctesiphon in an effective way. Iulianus besieged many cities in Europe and Persia so he was quite experienced about sieges is indisputable. Just his experience was mainly about quick sieges of small/medium sized cities, so his "Prudentia" (that was a uirtus for any roman general) suggested to him to delay the siege till the linking up to the other half of his army that Iulianus knew nearer. And it should be really nearer if Sebastianus and Procopius would have obeyed Iulianus' orders, but they did not, as we know.
But we can also remember that, just before the persian campaign, Procopius received from Iulianus' hands the imperial purple mantle to be guarded with care... Why Procopius (a Iulianus' cousin), if also Procopius was a general in that campaign and so put at similar risks to lose the imperial mantle if captured or killed?

From Matthews, pp. 138-139.

". . . a substantial army under Procopius and Sebastianus was
deployed in the north, to secure the Tigris fiontier against
attack and later, if possible, to link up with Arsaces of
Armenian and ravage parts of Media before jouiing the main
anny in Assyria. . . The failure of the army of Procopius to
achieve the more limited of its objectives was crucial to
Julian's failure at Ctesiphon: . . .".

The Iulianus' campaign was similar to the Traianus' one: splitting the army for a tongs advance from north and west to link up about one hundred thousand men and one thousand and one hundred ships beyond the Tigris to besiege in a serious way Ctesiphon and finally take Persia.

Any general needs of "Prudentia et Fortuna": Iulianus had the first one, not the second one.

Vale,

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The main point is that Julian's Persian campaign was pretty pointless from a strategic point of view and led to a vast waste of resources - it wasn't prudent at all.

If he'd been prudent he'd have continued to follow Constantius' policy for the Persian frontier - unglamorous but more or less successful.

[S SEVERUS]

The last disaster to be seen on such a scale was the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest, 360 years earlier

from Theodioius The Great.

Pardon... and what about Abrittus... The emperor Decius who was killed by the Goths. Maybe almost as dramatic as Adrianople but because not much in known about this battle you simply ingore it?

Again, I see it differently. Christianity seems to have been an instant sauces in stabilizing the Empire. The legions never rebelled against an established Christian dynasty. How many pagan dynasties could boast that ? Even the 5th century "generalissimos" never attempted to seize the Emperorship from a dynast.

No?? There were a lot of rebels during the Christian Byzantine Empire!!

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

The main point is that Julian's Persian campaign was pretty pointless from a strategic point of view and led to a vast waste of resources - it wasn't prudent at all.

If he'd been prudent he'd have continued to follow Constantius' policy for the Persian frontier - unglamorous but more or less successful.

Too simplistic, don't you think? It's like you, telling about the IIWW just say: "Well, Hitler attacked, so the Allies counterattacked and won...".

Let's ask Ammianus if the Constantius' policy was so effective:

Ammianus, XXI-16-15. But as in his foreign wars this emperor was unsuccessful and unfortunate, on the other hand in his civil contests he was successful; and in all those domestic calamities he covered himself with the horrid blood of the enemies of the republic and of himself; and yielding to his elation at these triumphs in a way neither right nor usual, he erected at a vast expense triumphal arches in Gaul and the two Pannonias, to record his triumphs over his own provinces; engraving on them the titles of his exploits ... as long as they should last, to those who read the inscriptions.

A policy based upon continuous containments and compromises was far to be a lasting solution with the Persians, more than with the great migrations people in Europe.
In his design of the roman State how Iulianus imagined to create, so aimed at perfection, any compromise policy had to be just a purely pragmatic decision to obtain further advantages in a limited and episodic context, and Iulianus was able to be clever when necessary in that sense, anyway his general and large scale policy/strategy did not provide for it of course, or rather, he found it repugnant, impure.
A flaw for a roman Emperor? Not necessarily with people like the Persians, so proudly irreducible for centuries. Anyone of us knows that the only way to eliminate forever (or almost) any danger for the roman frontier in that part of the Empire was the total elimination (not assimilation) of any persian royal dinasty and noblesmen class layer, and Iulianus killed really a lot of them and was killing them till his death.

Vale,

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Are you seriously suggesting that Ammianus is a credibly objective analyst of Contantius II? Sorry but that is just untenable.

One of his objectives when writing his Res Gestae was to magnify the importance and achievments of the (fellow) pagan Julian compared to Julian's contempories. His summary of Constantius deliberatley leaves out those successes that he himself describes in parts of his work where he is victorius in foreign wars such as against the Limigantes.

As for Julian's Persian campaign, just how realistic do you think it would have been to think that his invasion could in anyway remove the Persian threat on the eastern front?

Trajan, at a time when the empire was less pressured and against a weaker, less cohesive enemy in the Parthians, basically failed as his conquests were abandoned within a few years. The other major successes of the Romans against either the Parthians or the Persians were at times when the latter were internally weak and still they had not removed the threat. In Julian's reigh the Persian empire was both strong and cohesive under Shapur II.

So exactly the wrong time to invade and exactly the wrong time to expect to be able to remove any Persian threat - although the latter would I suggest have been impossible anyway. If Julian thought he could do it he was delusional.