The 'Adventus' of Julian at Sirmium: The Literary Construction of Historical Reality in Ammianus Marcellinus (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ammianus Marcellinus, from Soldier to Author, 2022
This chapter will outline and analyze Ammianus’ presentation of Julian’s Balkan itinerary, which scholars have not appreciated fully for the language, selection, and compression with which Ammianus produced his narrative. The historian uses singular language to describe the emperor’s movement from Augusta Rauracorum (Kaiseraugst) to Sirmium, and particularly emphasizes his entry into and reception at the latter city, which, I will argue, purposefully highlights the agency and appropriateness of the people of Sirmium in welcoming Julian and reflects Julian’s real concern with enhancing and communicating his legitimacy publicly during civil conflict by seizing Sirmium (Section II). I then discuss and explain how the historian used speed in his narrative to achieve three related goals simultaneously: to portray Julian as moving swiftly in the way an emperor should; to illustrate that Julian’s speed was one of his prime traits as a commander; and to focus on points and instances in the emperor’s journey from Gaul to Illyricum to Thrace that heighten his legitimacy while obscuring or minimizing those that could possibly threaten it (Section III). Having highlighted Ammianus’ notable emphases on Julian’s arrivals at particular cities, I will argue that cities such as Sirmium and Constantinople are best seen as narrative markers, positive signposts for Julian’s transition to sole emperor. Further, that the city of Serdica (Sofia), which scholars have tended to neglect in Julian’s journey, likely served as one of his (brief) residences during his march through the Balkans and that the historian has obscured this in his text out of regard for the emperor’s reputation. When Ammianus’ silence on Serdica is considered alongside his discussion of and explanation for the revolt against Julian at Aquileia, the only revolt at this time that we are told about, it seems that the historian viewed other cities as narrative obstacles, which were treated no less carefully than the markers (Section IV). Finally, I end by summarizing my main conclusions (Section V).
“The Wars of Julian ‘the Apostate’: A Consideration of His Strategy and Tactics.”
Emperor Julian is at the center of Ammianus Marcellinus’ extant history. He is the fundamental figure of emphasis in books XV to XXIV. Ammianus’ account describes the rise of Julian in the western half of the Roman Empire and his early death in the east. Julian’s military campaigns and his military abilities were of great interest to Ammianus and a focus of his writing. Ammianus was a strong admirer of Julian and his military prowess. Yet this has not restricted the value and usefulness of his work in the eyes of most modern scholars. Edward Gibbon, whose high estimate of Ammianus scholars such as A. H. M. Jones and M. L. W. Laistner adopted, considered him a reliable and mostly impartial historian. John Matthews argues that Ammianus fairly and accurately depicted the society in which he lived and that he provides an accurate picture of the second half of the fourth-century CE. Timothy Barnes, although cautious about the impartiality of Ammianus, states that his history is fundamental to our understanding and interpretation of the fourth-century CE. Thus the value of Ammianus’ work to the study of Late Antiquity is unmatched. We can apply this same reliability to Ammianus’ accounts of Julian as a warrior emperor. This paper discussed how Ammianus represents Julian as a commander and soldier in his history. I focused on one particular quality of Julian that Ammianus emphasized in his work: Julian as a talented strategist and tactician. For Ammianus, Julian was the ideal soldier and a natural leader. What becomes apparent after reading Ammianus’ account of Julian’s career is the deep respect that Ammianus felt for the military efforts and attitude of the emperor, as one soldier to another. University of Alabama at Birmingham Fourth Annual Graduate History Forum, March 2014.
Praising the Otherness, Talanta XLV (2013), 81-96
This paper explores the traces of ‘latent’ argumentation in the account of Julian’s initial moves in Gaul under the guidance of the magister equitum Marcellus. Consequently it is considered whether or not the Panegyric in Honour of Eusebia, sent to the Court at that time, should be read as part of Julian’s defence against the accusations made by Marcellus in Milan, and if it had any bearing on Constantius’ decision. Finally, the leitmotif of Julian’s loyalty in the Panegyric in Honour of Eusebia and Res Gestae (πιστός and apparitor fidus) prompts a consideration of key cultural differences in the works of Julian and Ammianus.
Constantius, Julian, and the Fall of Sirmium
Beginning and End: From Ammianus Marcellinus to Eusebius of Caesarea, 2016
When Julian captured Sirmium in 361, he took captive Lucillianus, normally identified as the magister equitum per Illyricum, and two legions described only as legiones Constantiacae. I argue that these units are identifiable as the Lancearii and Mattiarii which Constantius II had sent to Illyricum under his magister equitum praesentalis Arbitio ahead of his own arrival there, that the Lucillianus who was captured with these units in 361 is identifiable as the Lucillianus who commanded them again on the Persian expedition in 363, and that he was a comes rei militaris under Arbitio when captured in 361. The magister equitum per Illyricum during this period is perhaps best identified as Iovinus, and his role explained as a senior defector whose support allowed Julian to advance as fast down the Danube as he did. Finally, the magister equitum whom Julian’s forces famously captured sleeping at Sirmium in 361 is probably identifiable as Arbitio rather than Lucillianus.