Constantivs II

[Constantius]

Flavivs Ivlivs Constantivs, or Constantius II.
Not forgetting his various victory titles: Sarmaticus, Persiscus, Gothicus Maximus and Germanicus Alamannicus Maximus.

I would like to add a little information about the Emperor that I feel is often over looked. And as he is the subject of a campaign in this mod, I thought I would put down some thoughts and details of his reign for those who are new to this era.

The third son of Constantine the great, his two brothers being Constantine and Constans. Constantius became Augustus of the East in 337CE at the death of his father, he even led the magnificent funeral procession. No sooner though had the great man been laid to rest, his family took the gloves off and began infighting and purging opposition- real or imagined.

The first to go were Constantius II half brothers, Flavius Constantius and Dalmatius, both of which were executed, the story was that ConstantiusII and his brothers found a parchment in the dead Constantine's hand! It demanded his three sons avenge his poisoning at the hands of the half brothers.(the similar names does get somewhat complicated) Next the brothers turned on each other.
First to act was Constantine II, to cut a long story short, he felt his younger brother Constans and co- emperor was not submissive enough for him, so he marched on Italy, only to be ambushed killed and his body thrown in the river Alsa. According to the scholar John Julius Norwich, the governor of Pannonia a certain Sextus Aurelius Victor was said to describe Constans as "a minister of unspeakable depravity" needless to say his poor discipline and complete lack of talent for leadership, led to a revolt by a pagan army officer named Magnentius, who had Constans killed after proclaiming himself Augustus. Its not long after that Constantius II marches against the usurper and defeats him at Murso in 351CE.
Constantius is often thought of as the first Byzantine emperor this is mainly due to his favouring of the east, despite the triumph he gave himself at Rome in 357CE. But also his style of leadership, very absolutist even compared to other contemporary emperors, and the large retinue he surrounded himself with, including; Arrian bishops, like the- Praesoitus Sacri Cubiculi- Eusebius of Nicomedia. Perhaps an idea of how ConstantiusII was or liked to be seen, can be got from the following passage by Libanius( Although a pagan sophist, he was very friendly with Christian elite) He seems to beleive some divine intervemtion in Constantius II coming to thrown, just before Constantine went to war against the Persians. "When he had just begun the journey and was in this city (Nicomedia), the mighty one saw that, whereas his name was engraved on many trophies, it was necessary that one of his two sons facing the Persians should gain glory through victory over barbarians. After resolving this , he summoned the father on high to himself, and so transfered to war to the son" (Libanius: Orat 59.72) Of course all men in the imperial circle had to watch what they said,and flatter Emperors, as all Emperors were worried about usurpers, but members of Constantines family strike me as particulary paranoid at times.
Which brings me back to the Caesar Gallus, who had been appointed by Constantius II when he went west to face the Usurper Magnentius. Ammianius Marcellinus in book XIV chapt I, desribes" The ferocity and inhummanity of the Caesar Gallus" but whatever the real man was like, he'd made enemies and they plotted his down fall, by telling Constanius of Gallus wavering loyalty. He was then summoned to the Emperor and executed on the way.
But there was still the war against Persia to fight and realising he couldn't stay in the west, and by this point running out of family members he appointed Julian as Caersar, to deal with the increasing threat from Germannia.

You probably know the rest and I wouldn't want to keep you any longer, I hope it is of interest to someone. I apologise for any errors in advance.
Bibliography

modern scholarship:

Two Victory Titles of Constantius
T. D. Barnes

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Bd. 52, (1983), pp. 229-235
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20183888

A History of Rome, fourth edition (2009)Wiley-Blackwell

The Oxford History of the Roman World(2001) Oxford Uni Press

A short History of Byzantium,John Julius Norwich,(1997) Peguine Books

Ancient sources:
The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans C.D. Yonge, MA)

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Nice summation, Constantuis! Thanks for that.

[Constantius]

Seemed useful to get a few bits of information down for those who don't know, might inspire them to find out more, and besides for some reason I like him.

[Valentinian Victor]

I believe Constantius II is one of the most misrepresented Emperors. This is in the main down to Ammianus' critique of Constantius, accusing him of only being successful in civil wars and bankrupting the courier service by calling constant meetings to discuss religious matters.

However, he was almost constantly at war on all frontiers during his reign and managed to keep the eastern frontier stable whilst at the same time putting down serious revolts and barbarian invasions in the west.

Libanius and Julian credit him with not only increasing the numbers of clibanarii/catafractarii but also with giving them arms and armour stronger than their Sasanid counterparts.

A flawed, sincere Man who tried his best would be one way of summing him up.

[Constantius]

I believe Constantius II is one of the most misrepresented Emperors. This is in the main down to Ammianus' critique of Constantius, accusing him of only being successful in civil wars and bankrupting the courier service by calling constant meetings to discuss religious matters.

However, he was almost constantly at war on all frontiers during his reign and managed to keep the eastern frontier stable whilst at the same time putting down serious revolts and barbarian invasions in the west.

Libanius and Julian credit him with not only increasing the numbers of clibanarii/catafractarii but also with giving them arms and armour stronger than their Sasanid counterparts.

A flawed, sincere Man who tried his best would be one way of summing him up.

Precisely, this is why I 'like' him, he really did try to change the empire for the better, at least as far as he saw it. It could be argued Ammianus criticism of Constantius spending so much on church meetings, was because Constantius was a sincerely religious man who hoped to unify the church and empire. Who know what could of happened had he not died ? ..... I am hoping to get a nice dicusion going here.

[crlane]

Constantius's death was what averted a bloody civil war between the eastern empire and Julian. No matter who won, the empire would have suffered yet aother devastating shortage of troops and resources in its history. I wonder, would the two men have had better relations had Constantius not slaughtered most of Julian's family?

[juvenus]

i give him full credit for his military prowess and the success in preserving empire intact. however, he utterly failed to assert full control over his own courtiers who kept whispering lies, scemes and faulse accusations againg other people. his court was one giant maching that plotted against everyone. all this being said, his death was kind a useful for the empire since Julian had all his merits and more.

[Valentinian Victor]

i give him full credit for his military prowess and the success in preserving empire intact. however, he utterly failed to assert full control over his own courtiers who kept whispering lies, scemes and faulse accusations againg other people. his court was one giant maching that plotted against everyone. all this being said, his death was kind a useful for the empire since Julian had all his merits and more.

Not sure I'd agree about his death being useful to the empire, in fact I'd say quite the reverse as Julian's abortive invasion of Sasanid Persia seriously weakened both halves of the Empire for a number of years. Had Constantius not been forced to march west to face Julian, he would himself have invaded Sasanid Persia and perhaps may well have had better success as he was not as head strong as Julian.

[juvenus]

Not sure I'd agree about his death being useful to the empire, in fact I'd say quite the reverse as Julian's abortive invasion of Sasanid Persia seriously weakened both halves of the Empire for a number of years. Had Constantius not been forced to march west to face Julian, he would himself have invaded Sasanid Persia and perhaps may well have had better success as he was not as head strong as Julian.

i see what you mean, however, i'm not convinced with your argument about Julian being head strong. afawk, Julian proved himself as a capable commander and his invasion of Persia was going very well (Romans even won at Ctesiphon). had he only had a bit more of luck things would have been very different. as for Constantous II, i can't see why you think his invasion of Persia would have gone better.

[Valentinian Victor]

i see what you mean, however, i'm not convinced with your argument about Julian being head strong. afawk, Julian proved himself as a capable commander and his invasion of Persia was going very well (Romans even won at Ctesiphon). had he only had a bit more of luck things would have been very different. as for Constantous II, i can't see why you think his invasion of Persia would have gone better.

Julian's destruction of the boats/ships was a disasterous decision that even Julian himself appears to have rued making. The other big mistake he made was dividing his force into two, the one that was supposed to attack from Armenia failed to do so. Had Julian keep the force combined it may wall have encouraged him to lay seige to Ctesiphon and force a decisive confrontation with Sharpur.

Constantius invasion would have probably had more success as it would have been highly unlikely he would have burnt his boat, would not have divided the army and would probably have ended with the Romans still in control with the territory that Jovian was forced to cede to Sharpur as part of the peace treaty after Julian's death. Constantius was reasonably successful in field battles against the Sasanids, it was where Roman cities and towns were taken by Sasanid sieges where he was ultimatly unsuccessful. But even then, the eastern frontier remained the same despite the loss of Amida and several other cities.

[juvenus]

Constantius invasion would have probably had more success as it would have been highly unlikely he would have burnt his boat, would not have divided the army and would probably have ended with the Romans still in control with the territory that Jovian was forced to cede to Sharpur as part of the peace treaty after Julian's death. Constantius was reasonably successful in field battles against the Sasanids, it was where Roman cities and towns were taken by Sasanid sieges where he was ultimatly unsuccessful. But even then, the eastern frontier remained the same despite the loss of Amida and several other cities.

fair enough for the destruction of the ships. it was a confusing decision indeed. but his decision for splitting of troops seemed very reasonable by all military standards. wasn't it obvious that Julian attempted a kind of pincer movement? it seems as a very logical decision, one which Constantius too might have tried had he launched his invasion.

@SBH:
yes, your remark about Constantius' experience sounds reasonable. although Julian, as a young emperor and a very brave one is my favorite, i do agree that Constantius had much more experience on the nature of eastern campaigning itself. it's a shame that neiter he nor Valens tried their luck vs Persians. and what a huge luck for Persians that was.

[Constantius]

. I wonder, would the two men have had better relations had Constantius not slaughtered most of Julian's family?

he utterly failed to assert full control over his own courtiers who kept whispering lies, scemes and faulse accusations againg other people. his court was one giant maching that plotted against everyone. all this being said, his death was kind a useful for the empire since Julian had all his merits and more.

Both those points are valid, but not specific to Constantius II reign I don't beleive, but more what was inheritantly wrong with the imperial system, if you want the man in fronts job have him arrested. But he was -at least in my opinion - sincere in his attempts to heal church. Unlike Iulians crazy attempt to invent a pagan christian style church, had he (Ivlian)lived any longer I beleive he could of torn the empire apart.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I do think VV has hit on something here. For all Juliam's preparations and logistical command, he was leaving an empire only recently united under his rule and now being moved back towards a pagan bias. His attempt to cement that rule and his authority by a decisive victory over Rome's ancient foe would have secured him enormous prestige and given him unparalleled legitmacy on the throne.

However, it could be argued that Julian perhaps massively underestimated the actual nature of the campaigning strategies as his only real campaigning experience was against Germanic barbarians in a northern wooded climate. Despite having experienced officers about him who had campaigned in the Oriens, Julian himself had no practical experience. There is a definate feeling of desperation towards the end as he flings himself into battle which might reflect his realisation that he had underestimated Sassanid tactics.

On the otherhand, Constantius II had had years of experience with Shapur II, much of it if not bad then certainly inconclusive. A decision to personally invade Persia I think would have played out far differently than Julian's - it would have been launched under different political reasons and conducted in the light of far more actual experience. In fact, I tend to think that both Constantius II, Constantine the Great's and Valen's aborted Persian invasions were key missed opportunities in a wider late Roman geo-political sphere.

[Constantius]

As Caesar Constantius campaigned in the east successfully, first against the Sarmatians, then at the request of Armenia, Constantius confronted Narseh brother of Shapur II who had captured Amida. The campaign was a success and Narseh was defeated and killed and Constantius awarded title Persicus

[juvenus]

sure, he was skilled in the matters of the east.

[Valentinian Victor]

sure, he was skilled in the matters of the east.

He was also very successful in the West, defeating the rival Magnentius in several battles and also the Sarmatians and probably the Franks, Quadi, Goths and Allemanni as inscriptions hail him with the titles Germanicus and Gothicus.

[juvenus]

and what about those titles, they're interesting aren't they?
how decisive a victory must be in order for an emperor to hole a title, say, Germanicus?
is it enough to beat off some relatively small scale incursion or he actually crossed into barbaricum and slaughtered them all?

[Valentinian Victor]

and what about those titles, they're interesting aren't they?
how decisive a victory must be in order for an emperor to hole a title, say, Germanicus?
is it enough to beat off some relatively small scale incursion or he actually crossed into barbaricum and slaughtered them all?

You know he did personally lead an army against the Sarmatians and defeated them and a short while later utterly destroyed the Limogantes tribe?

[juvenus]

For the Sarmatians certainly. Limogantes? I can't recall hearing of them. I know that Gratian destroyed Lentinenses but I'm not sure about the name Limogantes.

[Gäiten]

For the Sarmatians certainly. Limogantes? I can't recall hearing of them. I know that Gratian destroyed Lentinenses but I'm not sure about the name Limogantes.

The "Free Sarmatians". People who were the slaves of the ruling Sarmatian tribal aristocracy and successfully rebelled against them.