Julian the Apostate, Constantius II by Ammianus Marcellinus - Essay Example

Julian the Apostate, Constantius II by Ammianus Marcellinus Introduction A historian has a special place, not only in the books and accounts of time, but in the very core of humanity. He who is a historian is an observer with a keen eye and a noteworthy sense of responsibility to record comings and goings. Nevertheless, he is still a human being, imperfect and inaccurate. With these flaws, it is inevitable for us to question history, to doubt what books tell of people and events ages then. It is difficult then, at times, to put things into perspective, knowing that some things in our very own history are not certain, how much more would things in the coming times be? Ammianus Marcellinus was a historian with a great sense of things. For someone who has live through the times of rich and vivid events, nothing is expected except a picturesque account of events. However, in the light of what the term history meant, accounts such that of Marcellinus may be carelessly considered as mere a narrative of personal experiences and commentaries. His writings may have the patches on; there may be biases on the accounts he had written. When confronted by events and circumstances, it is inherent for every person to choose our sides, to come up with our foregone conclusions. Historians are not excluded. For a case in point, consider his writings on Julian the Apostate and Constantius II. In such situations, there is no better way to come up with a judgment than to fairly analyze the condition and consider the circumstances. Did Marcellinus have his partiality in writing the accounts of these two figures? Moreover, did he, in terms of politics and religion, favor the system of Julian the Apostate over Constantius II, and have it reflect in his writings? His Own History: A Biography of Ammianus Marcellinus Most accounts tell that there is not much known of Ammianus Marcellinus’ life. From sources, it is said that he was born to a noble Greek family in Antioch, Syria, about 325-3301. There are no accounts of his early life and educational background. Most of the biographical information available tells that he entered the Roman army at a young age, at the time when east had Constantius II as the emperor. At age twenty, he became one of the imperial bodyguards. He was under the command of Ursicinus who was then the governor of Nisibis. He went to escort Constantius on a military drive in opposition to the Persians. After two quests in the east, Ursicinus had lost his position and Constantius’ support; Marcellinus seemed to share this demise as well. However, in 363 under the rule of Julian the Apostate as the emperor, he was on a campaign against the Persians again. With the death of Julian in Mesopotamia, he fought alongside with Jovian. He served under the new emperor and dwelled in Antioch until 383 when he settled in Rome. It is at this time when he began writing down the account of Roman history. He envisioned himself continuing the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. In Latin, he wrote down the history of the Roman Empire from Nerva’s reign in 96 down to the downfall2 of Valens in 378. There was no clear account on his death; however, it is said that his work, Res Gestae, was completed sometime between 390 and 392 (Wijma). Ammianus on Julian the Apostate: An Analysis of Accounts Julian, the successor of Constantius II, was Rome’s emperor from 361 to 363. He was a devoted and eager scholar before he entered the politics and military of his days. He became Caesar in Gaul in 335, as proclaimed by Constantius. Later on, in 360, because of his successful campaigns, he was made Augustus by his multitude. A battle between him and Constantius was at hand; however, because of Constantius’ death in 361 the face-off never took place. At this point, he was proclaimed the sole and legitimate emperor of the Roman Empire. As discussed in the previous section, Ammianus was in Julian’s campaign against the Persians in 363, where, unfortunately, Julian met his death. In his work, Marcellinus provides a detailed description of Julian, in most ways, much like a characterization of a figure in a novel. Contemporary historians and experts say that Ammianus Marcellinus believed that the events regarding Julian the Apostate’s rule are of utmost importance, and thus require much room. Julian, according to Ammianus’ accounts, was a virtuous man. He was an excellent emperor, a just and righteous leader to his army. He was wise; he had knowledge of warfare and undeniable tactical and strategic skills, in reference to the successful campaigns he had put through. Marcellinus also describes Julian as a generous emperor. An example is the remission of the crown-money, which every emperor was presented with (Mulder)3. The emperor is said to be unpretentious, modest, and reserved. With the death of Helena, his wife, Julian avoided sex in its broadest sense. Although praiseworthy of Julian in as much as he can, Marcellinus have discerned and recorded errors of Julian as well. He recounts Julian as poignant and reckless in his affairs. He criticizes the emperor’s character as well, pointing out his “loose way of presenting himself4.” For most of his accounts on Julian the Apostate, Marcellinus has acted as rather gentle to the emperor. The flaws were less of importance compared to the qualities of the emperor, which he described with poise. For instance, the flaws that he relates to the emperor were primarily of his physical attributes and emotional weakness. While those he considered as strong points were those of the qualities of highly praised leader. In these circumstances, what else could be thought of but the observation that Marcellinus as a historian had the tendency to favor things. In the light of this, however, consider yet another account of Marcellinus, that of Julian’s predecessor, Constantius II. Constantius II: From Ammianus’ Viewpoint Julian’s cousin and predecessor to the throne, Constantius II was Constantine the Great and the empress Fausta’s son, born in Illyricum in 317. He was proclaimed Caesar in 324. In 337, his accession to the throne was brought about by Constantine the Great’s death5. In the partition of the empire, he had his power over the east, as what his late father had planned. After the death of his two brothers, he took over the remaining parts of the empire as well. In Mulder’s writings, he tells of Constantius as a “conspicuous person.” Ammianus’ writings were of importance when it comes to resources on Constantius II. Recall that Ammianus Marcellinus entered the army at the time when Constantius II was at the throne. His portrayal of the emperor were rather vivid like Julian’s, nevertheless, to a certain extent he had the tendency to expose Constantius’ callous side. A soldier himself, Ammianus had the predisposition to observe and criticize the military affairs of the empire. It is then that in his accounts of the emperor Constantius II that he used this soldier’s viewpoint. Ammianus disapproved of Constantius’ decision to relent to negotiations regarding foreign affairs. Furthermore, he criticized the emperor’s prioritizing of civil wars than conquering foreign campaigns. Quoting from Mulder, Ammianus talks of Constantius in the following: ‘“It was on this unworthy rather than just or usual ground that… he erected triumphal arches… and added records of his deeds, that men might read of him so long as those monuments could last” (21.16.15).’ From a soldier’s standpoint, therefore, it is such nonsense for such act of sending diplomats to put foreign affairs through and leaving the military to work out civil wars instead of the foreign campaigns. Ammianus sets Constantius as an indifferent emperor, commemorating his success in civil wars, not minding his failure to resolve foreign matters. Although unimpressed of Constantius’ decisions regarding foreign issues, Ammianus still found a strong point of the emperor. He lauds him on his unwavering commitment to the excellence and standards of his army. Ammianus values Constantius’ standards and qualifications for the army soldiers. Ammianus Marcellinus never fails to characterize the figures of Roman history. Constantius II was not an exception; his account was rather entertaining. If Ammianus had described Julian as a virtuous man, then Constantius was the man of unsympathetic attitude. In reference to the situation of the military campaign strategy discussed above, he was incompetent, though not in the broadest sense since still he was to resolve civil issues. Nevertheless, considering the fact that it was an empire he was leading at that time it should be clear that territory is of utmost importance. He was incompetent in the sense that he was not able to make the most of his rule to conquer territories and win over foreign threats. Moreover, he was tightfisted as well, opposite of Julian; he elevated taxes and “loosely pulled back exemptions” as Mulder relates. Comparing the Accounts: Who Is Whom He Favored? Though only a few of what Ammianus had written on the two Roman figures were discussed above, there is the partiality of his accounts, favoring Julian the Apostate over Constantius II, with regards to the rule of the empire. There was no doubt that Ammianus Marcellinus was in favor of Julian. He is praiseworthy of Julian’s character as a man and as a leader. His flaws were rather numbered, his physical appearance being a discredit to his honorable character and being. From the words he himself had put down in ink, Julian’s greatness was revealed. Ammianus may have exaggerated details, nevertheless, his admiration of Julian cannot be denied. Constantius was the harsh one, the lesser of Julian the just and compassionate emperor. Ammiamus’ attitude towards him was cold and unsympathetic. It seems that Ammianus being the historian that he was dwelled on what he thought was noteworthy of the figure. It came then that it was Constantius’ imperfection that he considered notable. Although he was fair on accounting for both positive and negative sides of these Roman figures in his writings, the fact that he had resided on a certain side was worthy of analysis, as well as criticisms. Accounts of History: Perspectives from the Contemporary The Res Gestae, as contemporary historians had surveyed, may be bleached with Ammianus’ biases6 and twisting. Quoting from Laëthem, Julian’s campaign in opposition to the Frankish Chamavi and Sali was a good case in point. From this, it is said that Ammianus’ could have told the details from the headquarters’ perspective that was much detailed, however, he preferred to leave Constantius’ part to give Julian’s role an emphasis. Ammianus was consistent in his accounts; however, his dealing with the issues of characterization is uneven. Mulder noted, “There is in Ammianus an abundance of negative aspects to be found on Constantius.” As discussed above and from the contemporary and conventional analysis of literature, Ammianus’ negative portrayal of Constantius was doubtful. Whether it was his literary style or personal preferences, his writings have influenced history, as we know it today. Yet we are not certain, as records may not be as truthful as they seem. This seems to be a problem of perspective, the dispute on the standpoint from which an event is told. Connecting Ends: Analyzing Circumstances There seems to be a common point at which Ammianus’ personality intersects with each of Constantius and Julian. Most of the time people tend to adhere to something with which they can relate to. At this point, considering the connections between the historian and the subjects might reveal something and do justification to Ammianus’ accounts. If there is a notable point in Ammianus’ written accounts, it would be his treatment of religion, to be particular, that of Christianity. This subject was almost neglected by most writers of his time; nevertheless, Marcellinus had treated Christianity rather considerately. At some point, this was something unusual as Ammianus was a pagan. Thus, his considerate dealing with Christianity in his accounts was an indication of his religious tolerance. Julian the Apostate was raised in Christianity; however, in 351 he became a pagan. In his proclamation as Caesar in Gaul, he still named himself as a Christian. It was not until 361 when he abandoned Christianity and observed paganism. Recall that Julian’s education was of Neo-Platonism and paganism was, for the most part, of Neo-Platonism ideal. On the contrary, Constantius, like his father Constantine the Great, was devoted to Christianity. Contemporary commentaries on Ammianus’ treatment of religion in his writings were not converging to one particular idea. Some attributed his sympathetic treatment of the religion to his secretly Christian beliefs, while others contend that he was just tolerating religion. Quoting Mulder, “According to Ammianus, Christianity on the whole, and in particular of Constantius, was thus a threat to the wellbeing of the empire.” Could religion be Julian’s connection to Ammianus? Moreover, could this religious agreement be the reason behind Ammianus’ favorable treatment of Julian in his accounts? Seeing things in perspective of religion might be tricky, as Ammianus’ religious tolerance could not be denied in the writings. However, with Ammianus’ characterization of Julian, it seemed that the virtues he possessed were the ones that were given credit. It appears then, that with Constantius’ accounts, the historian has indirectly criticized Christianity, as to some extant, he might have presumed that Constantius’ indifferent attributes were influenced by religion. In the light of this, his remarkable admiration of Julian may have been rooted in their religious agreement as well as the Neo-platonic ideals of paganism. Conclusion The human society as we know today is a product of history itself. The historian’s role in the society is remarkable; it is he who shapes tomorrow’s. Nevertheless, it is human nature to believe what we think as good. Thus, we cannot question a historian’s written accounts; he has his own perspective on things. Nonetheless, a historian, in sincerest of his duty to the society, should embody the responsibility of shaping the society. Ammianus Marcellinus was a historian, the finest of his time. His works are priceless, as most of it were the primary sources of Roman history. His insights, as a soldier, on the war and military campaigns of the Roman Empire are significant. Ammianus’ favorable treatment of Julian over Constantius cannot be denied through the accounts. But the underlying reasons on the impartiality of his accounts cannot be questioned, for even the analysis would not reveal any truth of the matter. References: "Ammianus Marcellinus: Introduction." Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism. Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Vol. 60. Gale Group, Inc., 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 23 Apr, 2008 Laëthem, Bouke van. “Ammianus as a Military Historian.” Ammianus Marcellinus Online Project. Ed. Jan Willem Drijvers. 24 April 2008. Mulder, Michel. “Ammianus Marcellinus about Constantius II.” Ammianus Marcellinus Online Project. Ed. Jan Willem Drijvers. 24 April 2008. Mulder, Michel. “Julian in the eyes of Ammianus.” Ammianus Marcellinus Online Project. Ed. Jan Willem Drijvers. 24 April 2008. Wijma, Sara. “Biography.” Ammianus Marcellinus Online Project. Ed. Jan Willem Drijvers. 24 April 2008. Read More