An interesting article I found.

**Julianus Flavius** · May 05, 2010, 02:32 AM

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...ed/me-mclk.htm
So what does everyone think of this appraisal of Julian? I can see it could be interpreted as Biased, but I'm still interested to hear everyone's opinions. I shall withold my own until others have voiced theirs, so no-one feels pressured to agree or disagree with me.
ready, set, GO!

**charles the hammer** · May 05, 2010, 04:06 AM

I could be wrong but wasn't Julian's campaign against Persia a total failure? I mean their were success at the beginning, but this article seems to paint that if Julian had not died, it would have been successful. This article seems to me, and I could be wrong, but seems really bias toward Julian. But like I said I could be wrong I am just starting to study this area as of now so I could have my facts wrong.

**julianus heraclius** · May 05, 2010, 05:48 AM

I think you miss the point of the article, in that some saw Julian as a saviour of Paganism against the rise of Christianity. It is his attacks against the Christians for which he is know rather than his military achievements, even though they are good, especially in Gaul. He is one of thosw what if characters. He had the intelligence to tackle the Church and it was still in its infancy. Whether Julian could have restored paganism is hard to tell, but would be a great story all the same.

I think people need to think outside the square of what makes a great character. It is not all fighting battles and conquoring enemies. It is much more about dealing with deeper issues of philosophy and faith.

**charles the hammer** · May 05, 2010, 06:10 AM

Thats true, I think he was a very capable emperor, he was not a great general but he did seem to have a talent for picking the people whose advice he would take and seemed generally interested in rebuilding the empire on a level which few emperors before him could think of or had the time to do, but I just can not help but feel that his reign while short was still a failure, of course I am not biased as I am a Christian even though if you had a problem with the way the clergy acted at times during this period I could fully understand. Also I thought that he blamed the Christians for assassinating Julian during the battle and thats why the campaign was a defeat but upon further reading I see he was just presenting a theory of the time so I was wrong on that account.

**Valentinian Victor** · May 05, 2010, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by charles the hammer

Thats true, I think he was a very capable emperor, he was not a great general but he did seem to have a talent for picking the people whose advice he would take and seemed generally interested in rebuilding the empire on a level which few emperors before him could think of or had the time to do, but I just can not help but feel that his reign while short was still a failure, of course I am not biased as I am a Christian even though if you had a problem with the way the clergy acted at times during this period I could fully understand. Also I thought that he blamed the Christians for assassinating Julian during the battle and thats why the campaign was a defeat but upon further reading I see he was just presenting a theory of the time so I was wrong on that account.

For an example of how those who knew Julian, or who lived during his reign viewed him try reading Ammianus and Libanius. Libanius heaps gratuitous praise upon Julian, which is often stomach churning and cringworthy,whilst Ammianus, whilst still showing Julian in a positive light, does highlight his weaknesses as well. Both the above authors knew Julian either as a personal friend or as the commander of the army he fought with.

**Julianus Flavius** · May 05, 2010, 09:21 PM

I think the spear uesd to kill Julian was in use by both sides, Roman and Persian. Therefore, we can't tell if it was assasination or not.

**Lionheart** · May 09, 2010, 08:26 PM

Perhaps i'm just a paranoic guy. But thinking about Julian.

First of all he probably was suffered some kinda of trauma. Why? Well is father was assassinated, some cousins are also assassinated and in the end is brother was also assassinated. A boy that sees all of is family slaughthered cant be ok i think this is basic psicology even if it was in roman times or in the present time the same ideia applies.

Second is my personnal believe that he saw the christianism the force that make Rome a bunch of whimps ( i agree in some way with that).

Third if is possible that he was assassinated is completely possible. He died in campaign the recent roman history saw several emperors died in campaign and the next one is always one of the chief officers of the previous one (curious no?)

Four the persians will pay a great sum if anyone could dispatch a botherson emperor (but i dont believe that they are involved because if they are they will not make the agreement that they made with Jovian, so this time the Persian are off the hook

)

Fifth in a possible assasination i have the feeling that the Bishop of Rome when heard the news will jump with joy thinking "Bye bye your heretic good ridance to hell" something like that and if the possible assassin will returned to Rome he probably become one of the main advisors of the Bishop or something like that.

Well but i'm a rather paranoic guy so my opinion could be nothing....

**Julianus Flavius** · May 13, 2010, 12:03 AM

I think it depends on how organized the Christian church at the time was. Remember, he allowed back all the exiled bishops and such, and assassination, well, christian or not, they were still Romans, and I don't think they'd assassinate their emperor on the battlefield. In the middle of the night? Maybe. But I think the Romans in that battle would be more focused on their own survival, rather than killing the emperor. Personally, the Ghassnid Auxilla are the main culprits, but the problem is that Ghassnids were fighting for both sides (Each side had a few units of them) so either side could be to blame.