Julian the Apostate
- Thread starter Duc d'Orleans
- Start date
Okay, so, this is something that's been irking me. The idea that Julian would suddenly do a 360 from his OTL policy if he lives longer and resort to outright persecution of Christians, doesn't make much sense.
Julian's policies were clearly long term policies. He recognized as well as anybody, that persecuting the Christians would not do him any good, and only help their cause. Instead, he looked to bury Christianity by encouraging Christians' worst enemy: Other Christians. Julian instituted an edict of religious toleration, basically making it illegal for any religion to suppress another and for religious groups to commit violence against other religious groups (including Pagans committing violence on Christians, and Christians committing violence on other Christians). Julian wanted to let Christianity tear itself apart-obviously, this is a long term plan, so why one could come to the conclusion that he would suddenly do an about face and revert to persecution, I don't know.
Julian's other long term plan for burying Christianity was preventing Christians from teaching classical literature. Now while this didn't do much OTL, remember, he only reigned for 18 months and his policy was immediately reversed once Jovian was in power. Give him a 30 year reign, and this might have an effect: Namely, parents will have to choose not letting their children have access to a standard education, or seek out Pagan teachers-given how teaching classical texts was the backbone of Roman aristocratic/equites education (the only ones who could afford teachers in the first place) Julian was banking on parents seeking out Pagan teachers, instead of opting for no education.
Another thing: Julian still kept people based on merit on his imperial staff, regardless of religion. The obvious person to point to here is Jovian-he was publicly Christian, yet he was not only kept on Julian's staff, but was the leader of his imperial bodyguard. Depending on which historian you believe, there is evidence that Valentinian was also on Julian's staff. These are just two examples, but they are hardly the only examples, just two prominent ones.
Again, all of these are long term policies. There is no reason to expect Julian would suddenly change all these given a longer reign. He was a practical philosopher emperor, not a fanatic "Kill all the Christians" type of guy.
Edit: Also, this guy makes some good points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3wZpawjEScs&feature=fvwp
Edit 2: If you want to read that instead of listen to it, go here: http://historybooksreview.co.uk/could-julian-the-apostate-have-defeated-christianity/
Julian's policies were clearly long term policies. He recognized as well as anybody, that persecuting the Christians would not do him any good, and only help their cause. Instead, he looked to bury Christianity by encouraging Christians' worst enemy: Other Christians. Julian instituted an edict of religious toleration, basically making it illegal for any religion to suppress another and for religious groups to commit violence against other religious groups (including Pagans committing violence on Christians, and Christians committing violence on other Christians). Julian wanted to let Christianity tear itself apart-obviously, this is a long term plan, so why one could come to the conclusion that he would suddenly do an about face and revert to persecution, I don't know.
Julian's other long term plan for burying Christianity was preventing Christians from teaching classical literature. Now while this didn't do much OTL, remember, he only reigned for 18 months and his policy was immediately reversed once Jovian was in power. Give him a 30 year reign, and this might have an effect: Namely, parents will have to choose not letting their children have access to a standard education, or seek out Pagan teachers-given how teaching classical texts was the backbone of Roman aristocratic/equites education (the only ones who could afford teachers in the first place) Julian was banking on parents seeking out Pagan teachers, instead of opting for no education.
Another thing: Julian still kept people based on merit on his imperial staff, regardless of religion. The obvious person to point to here is Jovian-he was publicly Christian, yet he was not only kept on Julian's staff, but was the leader of his imperial bodyguard. Depending on which historian you believe, there is evidence that Valentinian was also on Julian's staff. These are just two examples, but they are hardly the only examples, just two prominent ones.
Again, all of these are long term policies. There is no reason to expect Julian would suddenly change all these given a longer reign. He was a practical philosopher emperor, not a fanatic "Kill all the Christians" type of guy.
Edit: Also, this guy makes some good points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3wZpawjEScs&feature=fvwp
Edit 2: If you want to read that instead of listen to it, go here: http://historybooksreview.co.uk/could-julian-the-apostate-have-defeated-christianity/
That's not a 360. That's not even a 180. That's barely a 90 degree.
Because he's already using persecution, just not the violent kind?
I don't think we can just give someone as quixotic as Julian a thirty year reign without sketching out he makes it that long.
Practical? Not even close. Fanatic? Most definitely.
There is a lot of reason to suspect that when his measures don't see the Christians crumbling that Julian will get frustrated, and frustrated men do drastic things.
"The influence of Christianity on the development of Western thought and culture has been huge and about as negative as it is possible to imagine."
"I'm anti-Christian to the point that I cannot be considered remotely objective." is not a good source.
Elfwine
Its clear that source isn't the only non-objective person in this discussion.
While its true that, for obvious reasons, Julian didn't like Christianity slydessertfox has raised some good points and I think you need to thing about how to reply to them rather than simply saying "that an't so".
It might be that if Julian had ruled for a prolonger period and he found Christianity still gaining strength he might have used more brutal methods, just as other emperors have done once they secured power, including Constantine himself. However that makes two assumptions and we can't be certain of either. [That his current policies won't work as he wanted and that he will then turn savage].
Fanatic is a loaded term but how do you explain the continued presence of Christians in powerful positions, such as Jovian, if that was true. The post of leader of his bodyguard isn't one he would trust to a Christian if you're assumption was accurate.
I'll admit I'm bias myself but I will consider opposing views and it sounds like you won't in a realistic manner. Not in a position to discuss this further now as late here and I'm away for a week from tomorrow but would ask you to look at what you're said in this last post.
Steve
Yeah, there's no possible reason why I could have any objection to Julian other than just bias, right?
I would like to note that I haven't used something like this: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/876-the-strange-case-of-julian-the-apostate as a source for criticizing him - despite the ease of finding such sites when searching for "Julian the Apostate" and "persecution".
THAT would be a sign of non-objectivity.
I am perfectly willing to consider counterarguments, but the idea that Julian was tolerant and accepting of Christianity flies flat into the face of his actual actions.
"In another example of Julian's legal assault upon Christianity, a law from 405 upholds his law banning the Donatist sect in Africa.[[81]] In a letter of 362 to the citizens of Bostra, Julian admonished the Christian citizens involved in factional strife there that if they sacrificed to the traditional deities, they could remain citizens in good standing. Otherwise they would be stripped of their citizenship.[[82]]"
http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm
Some "tolerance of all beliefs".
So maybe instead of presenting people who just ignore that we should actually look at that sort of thing. Just maybe there's a reason people like me - with no tie to Christianity and no interest in posting pro-Christian POV sites as "offering good points" - regard Julian as anti-Christian.
I'd really hope that when you get back you can look at that rather than just decide that objectivity is lacking because I find the idea that Julian was tolerant blatantly untrue.
Nice job not even actually trying to address what Julian actually did and explain why you can concur that it was fanatical persecution.
Couple that with giving parents a choice between pagan teacher, or no basic classical education, and Christianity is going to have a huge long term problem. It was far from inevitable that Julian's policies were going to fail-after all, I bet if you asked anyone in 300 AD that in 80 years Paganism will be outlawed and Christianity will become the official state religion, they would laugh in your face.
No, enacting an edict of toleration, and preventing any religious group from committing violence against another religious group (including, as I have said, Pagan against Christian violence) is not at all persecution.
For the sake of the discussion, assume he has a more or less undisturbed (as far as usurpers go anyway) 30 years.
Again, I am at a loss for where out of his policies you get the idea that he was a fanatic. None of his policies even begin to suggest that-Like I said, he was perfectly fine with determining staff positions based on merit rather than religion-a fanatical anti-Christian, would not put an openly Christian man like Jovian, as the head of his personal bodyguard.
And why are we to assume that it won't work? You seriously don't think, that Christianity won't tear itself apart with heresies and other controversies springing up unchecked? It took the intervention of emperors OTL from Constnantine on to resolve church disputes, and even then, Christians still couldn't get their shit together and agree. With a government actively encouraging splits within in the church, and making those splintered sects legal, Christianity is going have a tough time staying unified.
Couple that with giving parents a choice between pagan teacher, or no basic classical education, and Christianity is going to have a huge long term problem. It was far from inevitable that Julian's policies were going to fail-after all, I bet if you asked anyone in 300 AD that in 80 years Paganism will be outlawed and Christianity will become the official state religion, they would laugh in your face.
Yes, I know it's hard to believe that an anti-Christian can actually make good points on Julian. Yeah, he's not objective, but then again, the fact that we are living in a Christian society makes it hard to believe that anyone is objective when talking about Julian.
There's one glaring problem with this. Julian was dead by 363, so how he could enact a law in 405 from the grave is beyond me.
Edit: Here's his tolerance edict of 362: Yes, it's from Wikipedia, but they cite Ammianus Marcellinus as the source, basically our go to historian on anything from this time period;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_(emperor)
There's more to it than that, I'll see if I can find the whole thing.
edit 2: Also from Wikipedia:
edit 3: Looking at your own source, I found this proving my point of his condemning of violence against Christians:
Last edited:
How many here are in favour of a timeline on Julian?
ME
!!!!But seriously with all the info we've gathered here someone really needs to write something on Julian.
Elfwine
I found objectivity lacking in you're posts because of a) the tone of you're language and b) you're ignoring the points slydessertfox raised. Its not a very convincing debate to simply say "no it isn't" when you object to something someone says.
I am vaguely familiar with the Donatist but thought they had already been largely destroyed by the Catholic church which for a long time had persecuted them. Not sure why he would continue that banning during his reign but the fact the Catholic/Orthodox dominant group was still acting against them 40 years after his death shows that they were more persistent than I remembered and also that their primary problems were with their rival Christians at least as much as Julian.
Steve
I have tried to address what he actually did. And it is not consistent with his so-called edict of toleration.
Actions such as banning Christians from teaching the classics is, or saying "In a letter of 362 to the citizens of Bostra, Julian admonished the Christian citizens involved in factional strife there that if they sacrificed to the traditional deities, they could remain citizens in good standing. Otherwise they would be stripped of their citizenship." on the other hand . . .
Threatening people with stripping them of their citizenship if they don't sacrifice to the "traditional deities" is anything but tolerant, but we don't hear that from Julian's defenders.
No. Few Roman Emperors reigned thirty years. Few generals who lead from the front reached sixty. The combination is not so likely to occur that I'm willing to accept it as a reasonable assumption - and this is assuming no more tendency to usurpers or stupidity (beyond the leading from the front, which we can view in multiple lights - as a good nonChristian of another stripe I'm leery of dismissing it as stupid) than his successors.
Then take a look at his policies from a source that isn't denouncing Christianity as the bane of Western civilization.
Take a look at how people reacted to his enthusiastic sacrifices. This is not merely everyday going through the motions belief.
This is passionate, sincere, and driven.
I don't think that Christianity, which survived centuries of "internal" feuding with imperial preferences on the subject having very limited weight (otherwise, we'd see monothelitism as something other than a compromise hated by both sides, for example), is going to tear itself apart in one man's lifetime.
We're not talking about what someone would say in 300 AD. We're talking about the reality two generations later.
It's hard to believe that an anti-Christian is capable of looking at the situation with any pretense towards objectivity as opposed to glorifying Julian for his opposition to Christianity.
And describing our world as "A Christian society" - I know I'm a hermit and a Californian to boot, but the Christian nature of society is a little ambiguous.
The passage refers to the law of 405 referring to a law he passed in his lifetime. No need for zombie pagan emperors.
Cool a concept as that might be.
Condemning them lynching him is not the same as opposition to official, by-the-state, violence.
It isn't a very convincing debate to outright ignore certain actions done by the subject of the debate, which slydessertfox seems intent on doing when it comes to Julian's OTL persecution.
That they had problems from their fellow Christians doesn't mean they weren't harassed by Julian.
How many here are in favour of a timeline on Julian?
Add me to that list of interested folks.
HoC
How about you read the rest of the letter as well: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_of_Julian/Letter_41
That's the first two paragraphs of the letter. Hardly seems like he's being fanatically anti-Christian.
Few capable Roman emperors started their reign at thirty too. For the sake of discussion, let him reign as long Constantine, who had just as much effect of religion as Julian was hoping to have.
Only on a few occasions was an emperor killed or captured in the field against a foreign foe. Other than Julian, the other two happened during the Crisis of the Third Century.
Even if there are usurpers, there is no guarantee they will succeed, and given the recent history of usurpers right before and after Julian, they aren't likely to succeed either. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if he appointed someone like his cousin Procopius as Caesar, and thus heir, which would make usurpations even less attractive.
Not to mention, usually you don't usurp against a guy who in his first campaign won a massive victory while seriously outnumbered against the Alemanni, won a civil war, and is returning from a successful campaign against the Persians. There tends to be a lack of usurpations when the Augustus is a popular and extremely successful general, and when there are, there tends to be a lack of willing aristocratic and army support for those would be usurpers.
Yes, because that was totally where I got all my information from. I actually found that video after the fact. Anyway, most of what I'm saying comes straight from Ammianus Marcellinus himself, the go to guy on just about everything related to the second half of the 4th century.
Yes, it's obviously passionate, sincere, and driven. Neither of those makes him a fanatical extremist. Again, you have yet to explain why someone so focused on religion over merit would appoint an openly Christian man like Jovian as the head of his imperial bodyguard (not to mention, IIRC, Jovian's father was the commander of the garrison at Salona, which resisted Julian during the civil war with Constantius).
Only a couple hundred years after it became well established in western europe, and after Paganism had been almost eradicated from the western half of the continent, did Christianity survive centuries of feuding, because there was no other religion to replace it with. And in TTL, there's no Ambrose of Milan-and consequently, the "who's more powerful than who, state or church?" debate, would not even exist, and the state would have unquestioned power over the church.
But when you go back to the first 40-50 years of Christianity being the official religion, it required emperors' direct intervention to stay together- Constantine being the most obvious case, with Constantius and Constantine II and Constans, also playing a role whenever these disputes erupted. There's a reason they always appealed to the emperor to solve the crises.
Yes, but my whole point is, to say Julian's failure is inevitable doesn't have much basis. He reigned for 18 months, so obviously his policies had little effect in the grand scheme of things, considering they were long term policies.
Yes, and it's not hard to believe that Christians are capable of looking at the situation with any pretense towards objectivity as opposed to demonizing Julian for his opposition to Christianity?
By Christian society, I mean we live in a world where Christianity triumphs, and where most people (at least in Europe and the America's) are Christian.
My mistake then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, but when you couple it with his edict of toleration, it becomes likely that this was far from the only time he condemned violence against Christians.
When he's going on about how "they at one time indulged against one another, and afterwards carried on towards us who revered the gods. They therefore leave no stone unturned, and have the audacity to incite the populace to disorder and revolt, whereby they both act with impiety towards the gods and disobey my edicts, humane though these are.", I would most certainly disagree.
The repeated comments about their "impiety towards the Gods" is certainly not the wording of a "your faith works for you, mine works for me, it's all good right." - but it is very much something of someone who believes his faith is right and yours is wrong.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeemptimelines/a/ageataccession.htm If this is accurate - the average age on ascension is 41.
I'm hesitant to calculate average reign, as some were in very chaotic periods, so they would skew the results.
But going with the Five Good Emperors:
Nevra to the end of Marcus Aurelius's reign is 84 years and five emperors, for an average of (rounded up) 19 years.
Their average age at ascension was around 48.
And again, no.
I am not willing to grant an exceptionally long reign simply "for the sake of discussion". There are way too many ways an emperor can die before then - even a popular one.
Most emperors didn't lead from the front That might, just might have something to do with it.
Thus stating that I'm willing to accept no more tendency to stupidity or usurpers than his successors.
You're still posting it and referring to it having "good points".
Do you read Latin, or what translation did you use?
Not that it matters for credibility (I hope) - just trying to see if I can read your sources or not as I can't read Latin.
His actions as someone passionate, sincere, and driven do.
There were other religions to replace it with. How long did it take the Saxons to convert? The Norse? The Balts? The Slavs?
Plenty of options outside the equivalent of the old united empire's borders, and I'm not even counting Islam.
And we haven't even finished Julian's reign, so I'd appreciate you not skipping ahead to get rid of Ambrose.
Not because I think he's inevitable, but because until we actually agree on what his reign is, there's no point.
No, it did not require the emperors direct intervention. What did Constantine do to produce the mutant camel of a committee compromise that is (small O) orthodox Christianity's Bible?
Very little.
So the fact they were producing no fruits is because they weren't expected to flower so soon, not because they were planted in bad soil and ill tended (I'm looking here at him failing - in a secular sense - at Antioch here as a sign of why I regard Julian as a Great Administrator as overstated at best).
Being Christian or not Christian is one thing. People saying "The influence of Christianity on the development of Western thought and culture has been huge and about as negative as it is possible to imagine." is another thing entirely. I'm sure I can quote anti-pagan forms of the same thing, but I've been avoiding those websites.
I am surprised and disappointed that I cannot say the same about you for your end of the discussion.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151760/christianity-remains-dominant-religion-united-states.aspx
Since I'm an American, I'm using US figures. Anyone who wants to check the rest of the world is welcome.
I just figured it would be useful in figuring out just how much "most" is.
No worries. Its not the best worded part of the article.
How about when you couple it with his attacks on Christianity? How about when you couple it with his legislation preventing Christians from teaching the classics?
His edict of toleration is apparently not enough to prevent him from treating Christianity as a bad thing and something to be limited.
I'd be interested to know more of what people think of the potential effects of Julian's non-religion based reforms, specifically his moving away from the principles of the Dominate, and devolving power back to civic councils and local authorities.
The loss of investment and agency of the local landowners in the imperial system has been flagged as one of the major factors that weakened the late empire and led to the emergence of proto-feudalism, so if Julian's reforms could get them engaged it could have a pretty large effect.
The loss of investment and agency of the local landowners in the imperial system has been flagged as one of the major factors that weakened the late empire and led to the emergence of proto-feudalism, so if Julian's reforms could get them engaged it could have a pretty large effect.
Yes, but would the local landowners find it interesting enough to be involved in local administration? What's in it for them, more power?
Yes, more power. As Cambyses the Mad stated, Julian wanted to devolve authority for local matters to them as part of his return to the Principate model of Roman government. He wanted to undo the Dominate of Diocletian almost as much as he wanted to undo the Christianization of Constantine.
Hero of Canton
Last edited:
So Julian would be creating a limited version of decentralization, with local Magistrates deciding things on a city level and not governors assigned from Constantinople. Did I get that right?
But what sort of things would be decided on a city level? Suppose one city wants to support Christianity - what then?
My guess is that as long as they did not go back to having Christianity be the "Most-Favored-Religion" and persecuting the pagan majority Emperor Julian would not be concerned. Remember that what he wanted most was to return the Empire to the "Golden Age of the Antonines" and the Emperors of that era for the most part left Christianity alone. (See the Pliny-Trajan letters for exact details.)
Hero of Canton