Factors Leading to European Expansion and Colonialism in the 16th and 17th Centuries

 

Discussion essay for HIS-4150: History and Historians

Dr. Amanda Snyder

University of Central Florida

Factors Leading to European Expansion and Colonialism in the 16^th and 17^th Centuries

The road which led to the encounter between Europeans and native peoples of the “New World” and subsequent colonial expansion into these areas is a complex history of social and economic factors.  We cannot say simply that the need for expansion or military power was the primary factor that led to these events.  Instead, we can argue that series of changes in the agricultural, economic, and political climate of Europe were driving factors that fueled expansionism, which in turn provided the necessary mechanisms for subsequent colonial activity.  To begin with, we also must include the concurrent expansion of European power into African continent and following slave industry that resulted.  According to John K. Thornton, the early history of the Atlantic basin was a coming together of three cultures:  European, African, and “American.”[1]  This encounter was an enormous shock to all three cultures.[2]  Not only had these cultures not previously encountered others like them before, but the entire nature of each culture was substantially different; in appearance, language, religion, values, etc…  What led to European expansion, slavery, and colonialism? 

            To answer this question, we have to start in Europe and look at medieval economic systems.  According to traditional Marxist theory, there are three historical epochs of economic development:  ancient society (Greece and Rome), feudal society, and capitalist society (modern bourgeoisie).[3]  The medieval period in Europe is best described as a feudal society with local nobles owning land and “renting” the land to sharecroppers to develop agriculturally.  In 1500, the French historian Fernand Braudel published a work on the history of capitalism.  According to Thornton, Braudel describes three levels of inequality from poorest to richest:  hunter-gatherers, farmers that use the hoe, to farmers that use the plow.[4]  While this paradigm does well to describe different levels of agriculture, Thornton disagrees with Braudel that this is a universal paradigm of development.  He points out the research of Pierre Goubert that showed that some of the richest agricultural regions had the lowest vitality rates (life expectancy, infant mortality).[5] Thornton argues that Braudel’s model did not exist before the 19^th century.[6]  What occurred in Europe during the 15^th and 16^th centuries then, must be found elsewhere.  According to Thornton, a changing agricultural and political landscape, from pure feudalism to the introduction of a monarchy, led to an imbalance of power, wealth, and wealth production.  A growing merchant class helped to further fuel this development.  This is evidenced in the work of Christopher Hill in “Economic Background of the English Revolution.”  Hill argues that because of changing agricultural roles, the middle/merchant class grew richer, while the nobility and peasant class grew poorer.  Changes in land ownership precipitated the need to expand beyond the geographical area of England.[7]  The growth of the merchant class led to an incipient capitalist economy beginning to grow.  It is important to note, according to Hill, that before 1640, what changed in England was not of agricultural technique, the method of farming remained the same, but instead there was a change in land ownership and in the volume of production.[8]  Thus, the need for more land led to expansionism. 

            Sailing to Africa and the Americas, European powers discovered peoples completely unlike themselves.  It is safe to say they were at the hunter-gatherer stage of production.  However, differences in culture would prove to be life-changing for everyone.  As described previously, European culture was driven by the need to produce more, thereby fueling a materialist culture that required more and more goods and wealth to sustain it.  Conversely, hunter-gatherer societies are able to easily produce all that they require.  As Thornton describes, these societies did not have to share their good with an upper class and were able to meet their needs much more easily than their European counterparts.[9]  According to Richard Grassby, the value of objects reflect the culture which produces it.[10]  We can see that in the initial contacts between Europeans and the native populations of the Caribbean Islands, they were content with receiving “low value” beads and trinkets from the Europeans.[11]  They valued these items, it would seem, for their intrinsic beauty and did not seem concerned about gold, silver, or other precious metals and gems.  The indigenous populations did not “need” anything from the Europeans as they were completely self-sufficient.  This represents a power imbalance whereby the Europeans could more easily obtain from the native peoples those precious metals, gems, production of goods, and most importantly, land that they could produce these on.  European governments were more than eager to join in on the exploration and development of these new lands and resources, providing charters to private companies giving them broad powers in the Americas.  These colonies acted as de facto economic representatives of their home nation.  In the charter given from the government of the Netherlands to the Dutch West India Company in 1621, we see the rights of the charter company that had been established.  Article II of the Charter states that they had the right to “make contracts” and “appoint and discharge Governors.”[12]  In addition, for security purposes, the Charter company is authorized to “take any troops with them (Article V)” who “shall obey the command of the said Company (Article VI).”[13]

            The long road from initial mutual discovery to the establishment of colonies that produced gold, silver, and other valuable goods such as tobacco and sugar, all profitable back in the European continent was a long and winding one.  A “perfect storm” of economic and political factors in Europe along with differences in culture and economy in the “new world” created the opportunity for the wealth and land that England, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands needed to fuel a rising capitalist economy to be accessible, while simultaneously creating colonial subjects and an African slave trade to fuel it.  Unlike in other parts of the globe, an equitable trade system would not be established here, instead, the Europeans would dominate both continents and the islands within their navigable waters.

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Charter of the Dutch West India Company – 1621, Yale Law School, The Avalon Project

collection, accessed September 2, 2021. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westind.asp, Art. II.

Columbus, Christopher, “Document 2-2. Columbus Describes His First Encounter with

‘Indians’,” in Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents, edited by Michael P. Johnson (Boston/New York, Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012)

Grassby, Richard, “Material Culture and Cultural History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History,

XXXV:4, Spring, 2005

Hill, Christopher, “Economic Background of the English Revolution,” in Amanda Snyder,

“Material Culture,” UCF Webcourses.  Accessed September 2, 2021. https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1387655/pages/week-2-material-culture?module_item_id=15070614

“Marxist Historians”, in Amanda Snyder, “Material Culture,” UCF Webcourses. Accessed

September 2, 2021.  https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1387655/pages/week-2-material-culture?module_item_id=15070614

Thornton, John K, A Cultural History of the Atlantic World, 1250-1820, New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2012

---

[1] For ease of reference, the generic term “American” is used in this work to denote the areas and indigenous peoples encountered in the lands currently named North, Central, and South America, as well as the islands of the Caribbean unless an otherwise more specific nomenclature is warranted.

[2] Thornton, John K, A Cultural History of the Atlantic World, 1250-1820, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 29.

[3] “Marxist Historians”, in Amanda Snyder, “Material Culture,” UCF Webcourses. Accessed September 2, 2021.  https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1387655/pages/week-2-material-culture?module_item_id=15070614

[4] Thornton, John K, A Cultural History of the Atlantic World, 1250-1820, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012., 29

[5] Ibid, 32

[6] Ibid, 32

[7] Hill, Christopher, “Economic Background of the English Revolution,” in Amanda Snyder, “Material Culture,” UCF Webcourses.  Accessed September 2, 2021. https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1387655/pages/week-2-material-culture?module_item_id=15070614, 2

[8] Ibid, 5.

[9] Thornton, John K, A Cultural History of the Atlantic World, 1250-1820, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 32.

[10] Grassby, Richard, “Material Culture and Cultural History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXXV:4, Spring, 2005, 597

[11] Columbus, Christopher, “Document 2-2. Columbus Describes His First Encounter with ‘Indians’,” in Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents, edited by Michael P. Johnson (Boston/New York, Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012), 20.

[12] Charter of the Dutch West India Company – 1621, Yale Law School, The Avalon Project collection, accessed September 2, 2021.  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westind.asp, Art. II.

[13] Ibid, Art. V and Art. VI

Demons, Exorcists, and Spirits: The Belief in Evil in Ancient Mesopotamia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demons, Exorcists, and Spirits:

The Belief in Evil in Ancient Mesopotamia

 

 

 

 

John C. Haynes, Jr.

ASH-3200:  Ancient Near Eastern Societies

Dr. Tiffany Earley-Spadoni

August 4, 2021

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                          1

            The belief in evil spirits and demons by the people of Ancient Mesopotamia can be demonstrated by analyzing literature related to the afterlife, funerary practices and artifacts, as well as ritual healing and exorcism spells that were used during that period.  In this paper, I will discuss the general ideas that ancient Mesopotamians had regarding the various gods and goddesses as well as the afterlife for the ordinary person.  I will then show that there was a general belief in ghosts or spirits, and specifically spirits who were considered “evil” by nature of how they behaved post-death and will also look at belief in demons.  Finally, I will discuss specific rituals related to dealing with the dead, particularly the bad ghosts and demons that haunted individuals.  Primary sources for this area of research include prose literary works like the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian flood story Atrahasis, and the Assyrian Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal.  Additional literary sources are to be found in magical incantation texts, such as the Akkadian corpus on magic and divination known as Maqlu. 

            While there were a multitude of gods and goddesses worshipped across the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia, there was a general consensus of belief in the afterlife of the human soul and that this soul resided in an underworld, or Netherworld.  According to Joann Scurlock, Mesopotamians believed that humans were created by combining clay with the flesh and blood of an immortal god.[1]  Of the human soul, it was believed that there were three parts:  the baatu, the zaqIqu, and the eoemmu.[2]  Of these three, the eoemmu was that part which needed the greatest care lest it become an agitated spirit, living on for eternity.  Even the gods had eoemmu of their own.  The spirits of the dead, if cared for properly, should rest eternally in the

                                                                                                                                                          2

Netherworld.  However, as seen in the Assyrian Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal, the goddess of the Netherworld, Ereshkigal, at her displeasure could release the souls to feast upon the flesh of the living.[3]  It was believed that the spirit, after death, continued to feel hunger and thirst and were unable to quench these on their own.[4]  It was possible for a person to enter into the Netherworld, but only by entering at the gate of Ganzer[5] and proceeding through a series of gates and challenges and only safely by following sets of rules, lest a person be seized by the Netherworld.[6]  The souls of the dead which were not cared for properly, could become restless and remain in the land causing problems for humans.  As we shall see, these spirits would eventually become demons and there were cases where the soul could immediately become an evil, vengeful spirit.

            As we have seen, the ancient Mesopotamians had a substantive belief in a spirit that continued to exist after death of the person.  Assuming that proper funerary rituals were conducted (to be discussed in the next section), the spirit would continue to remain at peace as long as offerings were given, and the person were remembered by the family and the descendants of the family.[7]  However, according to Scurlock, when the memory of this eoemmu began to fade over time, the spirit began to commingle with other deceased of the family into a common ancestor type spirit known as an eoem kimti.  After further time had passed, collective spirits in

 

                                                                                                                                                          3

the community became known as kimtu rapaatu.[8]  In time, these long-forgotten spirits became demonic, and were referred to as utukku demons.[9]  Another curious mention of demons is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where we see Gilgamesh pleading for his friend Enkidu who was seized in the Netherworld.  Gilgamesh states that “the udug demon of Nergal, who spares nobody, did not seize him.”[10]  The text does not embellish on the meaning of this demon, but it is interesting to contrast this with the Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal where it is Nergal as messenger from the heavenly gods who is sent to the Netherworld[11] and the resulting journey shows many similarities to that of Enkidu.  There are two other types of “demon” spirits that could form from the human spirit.  There is a class of demons known as lilu, who formed when young men and women died before having the opportunity to get married, have children, and enjoy the happiness of family life.  These demons would push humans to madness and lead to their death.  Lilu would target humans who were of the same age as they were when they died, but of the opposite sex.[12]  The other type of demons are those known as kubu.  These were formed when an infant died prior to birth or shortly afterwards.  The kubu attacked infants and young children.[13]

            Much of the information we have regarding these human spirits and demons come from the archaeology of homes and temples.  Here, scholars have found ritual tablets and inscriptions from which can be gleamed much about how these spirits were dealt with.  While royalty often had special temples for the placement of their bodies, most common families would bury the

                                                                                                                                                          4

bodies of their family members beneath the floors of their homes.  Continual offerings of food and drink ensured that the dead remained quiet and complex rituals ensured the transfer of the soul from the body to a resting place.[14]  Annual festivals of the dead and special temples would also provide a means of general offerings to all the souls.[15]  The dead who had the potential to form lilu or kubu demons were treated differently.  The bodies of infants and the very young were buried within the walls of the house, not beneath it, or in special cemeteries.  And both classes of dead were offered special rituals to appease them after death.[16]  In severe cases of demonic oppression, special incantation exorcists were called in to deal with the situation.[17]  Examples of incantations are found in the Akkadian text Maqlu.  Several incantations are directed against various forms of demonic activity, some caused by witchcraft.  Incantation Two, Nuska surbu ilitti Ani, is intended call the god Nuska to be a guardian at night against evil dreams caused by demons.[18]  And Incantation Three, Anassi diparu, gives power to the exorcist to ward off the utukku-demon, the sedu-spirit, the lurker-demon, and the ghost.[19]

            As I have shown in this paper, the ancient Mesopotamians had a wide-ranging belief in both the vengeful spirit of humans after death as well as the demonic in varying forms.  Their varied cultures display an equal variance of supernatural myth and belief in the afterlife.  While I have chosen to limit the number of gods and goddesses in their pantheons mentioned within this

 

                                                                                                                                                          5

paper, it should not be doubted by the reader that there were many who also participated in various forms in the life/death/afterlife cycle of the spirit world.  However, it should be sufficient to determine that the Mesopotamian world included a belief in a multitude of deities as well as the life after death of the human spirit.  Along with a number of types of demons and demon-spirits, we can witness to this belief by the care and caution taken to appease these entities after death and during the cultic year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                          6

Bibliography

Abusch, Tzvi. The Witchcraft Series, Num. 37:  Maqlu.  Atlanta:  SBL Press, 2015

Attia, Annie.  “Epidemics in Mesopotamia,” ANE Today, Vol. VIII, No. 9.  (09/2020). 

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2020/09/epidemics-mesopotamia

Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic

Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998- .

Gurney, O. R. "The Sultantepe Tablets (Continued): VII. The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal."

Anatolian Studies 10 (1960): 105-31. Accessed August 3, 2021. doi:10.2307/3642431.

Scurlock, JoAnn.  “Mortal and Immortal Souls, Ghosts and the (Restless) Dead in Ancient

Mesopotamia,” Religion Compass, 10/4 (2016): 77–82, 10.1111/rec3.12199.

---

[1] Scurlock, Mortal and Immortal Souls, pg. 77

[2] Ibid.

[3] Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets,” pg. 123

[4] Scurlock, “Mortal and Immortal Souls,” pg. 78

[5] Black, et. al., “The Electronic Text Corpus,” Line 166

[6] Ibid, Lines 184 - 198

[7] Scurlock, “Mortal and Immortal Souls,” pg. 79

[8] Scurlock, “Mortal and Immortal Souls,” pg. 79

[9] Ibid.

[10] Blake, et. al., “The Electronic Text Corpus,” Line 235

[11] Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets,” pg. 113

[12] Scurlock, “Mortal and Immortal Souls,” pg. 79

[13] Ibid.

[14] Scurlock, “Mortal and Immortal Souls,” pg. 78

[15] Ibid, pg. 77

[16] Ibid, pg. 79

[17] Attia, “Epidemics in Mesopotamia”

[18] Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlu, pg. 8

[19] Ibid, pg. 10

Ammianus Marcellinus - The Later Roman Empire: A Brief Analysis of the Empire, the Emperors, and the Army

 

 

 

 

 

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 1^st and 3^rd 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