Ammianus Marcellinus
– The Later Roman Empire
A Brief Analysis of
the Empire, the Emperors, and the Army
John C. Haynes
EUH-4413: History of the Roman Empire
Dr. Edward Dandrow
August 2, 2021
1
Introduction
Ammianus
Marcellinus was a Roman military officer who, upon his retirement, wrote a
history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Nerva to the death of
Valens. The only surviving books we have
of this history are from the period from 353 to 378 CE. This history, which later scholars have
entitled The Later Roman Empire, is told in both the 1st and 3rd
person from Ammianus’ perspective and begins with Gallus as Caesar in the West
and Constantius II as Augustus in the East.
Ammianus is of Greek origin from the city of Antioch and seems to be a
junior officer in the military staff. In
this paper, I will be analyzing his historical treatise and looking primarily
at three areas of discussion. First, we
will see that Ammianus was a fervent believer in the Roman ideal. He sees the Roman state as the ultimate
pinnacle of societal transformation and Rome as, indeed, the Eternal City. Second, I will discuss Ammianus’ opinions of
the Emperors of the Roman Empire, specifically those listed in this time period
and how Ammianus views them as it relates to the greater good of Roman
society. Ammianus has, with the notable
exception of Julian, a mostly negative view of the Roman emperors. Although, he does tend to be fair in his
overall analysis of both good and bad traits.
Finally, we will look at Ammianus’ view of the Roman armies and the role
they played in the political changes of the Roman Empire.
Ammianus
and the Empire
We
know next to nothing of Ammianus’ early life, but when we join him in Book 14
of The Later Roman Empire, he quickly shows us that he is a staunch
believer in the Roman ideal, or perhaps better stated, the Idea of Rome. Like a Romantic, Ammianus poetically insists
that Rome was a “city destined to endure as long as the human race survives…”[1] He describes Rome over
time likened as the life of a person who, from infancy through childhood, adolescence,
and adulthood, grew and struggled to gain in strength and wisdom. And finally, in old age, Rome is to be
considered “venerable” and an “eternal foundation.”[2] Ammianus often reminds us of his admiration
for the idea of the Roman state and how it is the perfection of society and in
fact
2
refers to Rome as the “home of
empire and of all perfection.”[3] “Everywhere,” Ammianus writes, “Rome is…an
object of reverence and awe.”[4] It becomes apparent, however, that Ammianus
views the height of Roman society as having been achieved by the end of the
Roman Republic. All that needed to be
done, all the struggles of her youth, had been done by then. All that was left was for her leaders to
maintain what was already accomplished.
With a sense of impending doom, Ammianus then goes on that, with the
turn to Empire and Emperor, that things were to change. The “venerable city…handed over to the
Caesars the administration of its heritage.”[5] He views this with condemnation due to the character
of those whom the state is entrusted. It
is “damaged by disorderly frivolity of a few” who “behave as if they were
licensed to indulge in vice and debauchery.”[6]
Ammianus
and the Emperors
According
to Ammianus, the philosophers of old describe four cardinal virtues that are
the hallmark of good men: self-control,
wisdom, justice, and courage.[7] Against these virtues, Ammianus describes the
various emperors who reigned during the time period of his historical
work. He is fair to report when an
emperor has overall beneficial tendencies in one or more areas, but quick to
provide us with those traits he considers not appropriate for a person of such
station and how it affects those around him and the society in general. Ammianus details for the reader of two emperors
in particular who exhibited traits which he disproved of most earnestly. Constantius and Valens both were inclined to “give
ear” to court intrigues and gossip, lending itself to constant accusations of
treachery against the emperor. Lacking
the wisdom to ferret out the truth of these accusations, both Constantius and
Valens were quick to believe the oft-told lie, and pursue trials against the
supposed criminal, often leading to death.
Under both of these, a swamp of court intrigue hampered any real goal of
just leadership. Ammianus despised the
“whisperers” in the palace and sees them as leading to horrible decisions by
weak leaders. While there are many other
negative traits that Ammianus describes by the various emperors, perhaps it
3
is easier to describe what Ammianus
viewed as good in discussing Julian, in order to more easily discern what would
constitute bad traits. Alone among all
the Augusti, Julian is the shining star in a sea of vice. To be certain, Ammianus points out the faults
of the emperor, but those are few and far between. Julian, upon ascension to the Augustus,
openly declared his previously undisclosed position as a follower of the old
Roman gods. Perhaps, Ammianus, who, it
seems from his writings, was also a pagan, sees in Julian something of a
brother in a world of religious persecution against paganism. Christianity, which had recently received
status of state religion, had been systematically persecuting believers in the
old religion. Or perhaps Julian was
truly as good an emperor as Ammianus describes him. We cannot know for certain what, if any, ulterior
motive Ammianus may have had. To his
credit, Ammianus does relate to his readers several instances where he
disagreed with the actions of Julian and even stated that perhaps the one
harshest act Julian performed was when he “banned adherents of Christianity
from practicing as teachers of rhetoric or literature.”[8] It would seem Julian’s greatest virtue was
his ability to think before acting. He
was as inclined to be quick to anger as anyone else. He was often described as rushing to
judgement. But he would often think
about the situation before speaking or acting, which led to a more judicious
action. When someone stated something
that brought anger to him, Julian, after contemplation, often “returned a soft
answer.”[9] According to Ammianus, society benefitted
from a leader who showed compassion rather than quick ruthlessness. He contrasts the emperor Valens with stories
of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia.
Valens, he relates, was known for his quick anger and ruthlessness. According to Ammianus, Artaxerxes was known
to cut off the turban of one who was slated to be beheaded or instead of
cutting off one’s ear, he had the strings from their cap cut off.[10] In Ammianus’ eyes, “merciful behavior” was
what would win the “acceptance and respect of his subjects.”[11] We cannot discuss this subject without
delving into Ammianus’ religious beliefs.
While he polarizes traits of leaders based on the markers of having self-control
or lacking self-control, wise or lacking wisdom, seeking
4
justice or seeking vengeance, and
having courage or having fear, he clearly places the fortunes of the Empire in
the hands of Fortune. While the emperors
make decisions, for good or ill, it is the
gods who determine what will
prevail. Often, Ammianus leaves the
outcome of events to the will of Mercury or Nemesis or Fortune or Fate.
Ammianus
and the Army
Without
doubt, Ammianus is an army man. His
pride in the Roman army is rampant throughout his writings. He shows us his continued love for Rome and
her army, by referring constantly to these forces as “ours.” It is hard to find a page in his work that does
not reflect some event that included “our army” or “our men” and even “our
valor.”[12] Before discussing the army as a whole, I
would like to look at individual virtue.
While army units, without doubt, affected political affairs, often it
was individuals who swayed the course of history. For example, twice, while Julian was Caesar
in the West and Constantius was Augustus in the East, the legions under Julian
declared him to be Augustus, in defiance of Constantius. And twice, according to Ammianus, Julian
declined, although on the second time, after a period of days, Julian relented.[13] This speaks more to the power of an
individual of sound values than the power of an entire army. It would seem that Ammianus intended to show
this in relating these instances. However,
as was often the case in Roman history, the army would often play a vital role,
for better or worse, in the affairs of politics. Often, when an emperor died or was killed
while in the field, hundreds or thousands of miles from Rome, the army would declare
a successor when there was none already apparent. Upon the death of Julian while campaigning
against the Persians, it was determined by the generals and commanders that
time could not be wasted in declaring a successor. Julian had not declared one, and as it often
happens, where there is doubt of an emperor, many will use this to take
advantage of the situation. The army
chose Jovian, a senior staff officer, to be Augustus. In his form of apologetics, Ammianus
questions the reader if they think it appropriate to choose an emperor in this
manner? Or
5
perhaps, he writes, someone who
loves to cite law codes may argue with this decision. Again, poetically, he wonders if a ship lost
in storm has lost its pilot, shouldn’t a random crew member immediately take
the helm?[14] And again, Ammianus directs our attention to
the gods, it is Fortune who decides these things.[15]
Conclusion
Ammianus
Marcellinius was clearly a firm believer in the societal experiment that was
Rome. From her earliest times to his
last days, Ammianus was proud to call himself a Roman, proud to be part of the
Roman army, and proud of the greatness that enveloped Rome in its aura. While we always have to be cautious in any
historical work to understand the motives of the historian, we can also gleam
much from that content. We are able to judiciously
determine where bias may lie. Ammianus’
history is no different. It is apparent
from his over-flowing of praise that he heaps on Julian that he is favored by
Ammianus in some way. We can see that in
his treatment of Gallus and his “excessive harshness”[16] or of Constantius who
used “arbitrary rule” and followed “baseless suspicions”[17] when dealing with
treason, that Ammianus was clearly not their biggest fan. In all fairness, he does provide for us those
traits which he found admirable.
However, we cannot help but wonder, how is Ammianus privy to all these
events and information? He could not
have been in all places at all times.
While he may have been present at certain events or was able to read
some communications, he also must have had to rely on third party
information. Undoubtedly, these were
often not entirely accurate, then blemished by the bias of the relater, and
further blemished by Ammianus’ own bias.
While we gain a wealth of historical information, we also have to
carefully analyze this information. What
we do have is a strong sense of the general disposition of emperors and how
they were seen by their subjects as well as a unique eye into the operations of
the Roman army.
6
Bibliography
Ammianus Marcellinius. The Later Roman Empire. Translated by Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin Books, 1986.
[1]
Marcellinius, The Later Roman Empire, pg. 45
[2]
Ibid, pg. 46
[3]
Marcellinius, The Later Roman Empire, pg. 101
[4]
Ibid, pg. 46
[5]
Ibid, pg. 46
[6]
Ibid, pg. 46
[7]
Ibid, pg. 295
[8]
Marcellinius, The Later Roman Empire, pg. 246
[9]
Ibid, pg. 120
[10]
Ibid, pg. 404
[11]
Ibid, pg. 405
[12]
Marcellinius, The Later Roman Empire, pg. 141
[13]
Ibid, pg. 189
[14]
Marcellinius, The Later Roman Empire, pg. 300
[15]
Ibid, pg. 300
[16]
Ibid, pg. 41
[17]
Ibid, pg. 44
No comments:
Post a Comment