Julian the Faithful

Here is an interesting coin. And Cato is right, the changes were not unnoticed by those who were learned and chronicled history, but would the common man truly know the extent of the changes? I think we hear words like Roman Empire, Principate, Dominate, Byzantine Empire, etc, and we assume that is the terminology used by those who lived in this age. The facts seem to indicate that even in this late age, the Emperors went to some trouble as to be seen as protectors of a Republic that had not in fact existed in some time. These men knew the value of spin. Thank you all for your thoughts. Truly enlightening. Obverse: Finely engraved bust of Julian wearing the royal diadem and robes, fastened by a large brooch at the shoulder; Latin legend DN FL CL IVLIANVS PF AVG, abbreviated form of Dominus Noster Flavius Claudius Julianus Pius Felix Augustus = "Our Lord Flavius Claudius Julianus Dutiful and Wise Augustus." Reverse: The Apis Bull standing right, two stars above; Latin legend SECVRITAS REIPVB = "The Security of the Republic," CONSPB (mint of Constantinople) below.

After a few weeks research, most sources claim that Julian was inducted into the cult of Mithras. Now whether this was purely propaganda, or sincere, that will require further investigation. It is also been stated by several sources that Julian built a Mithraeum in the place of Constantinople. That to me, seems very important. I doubt there were many adherents to Mithras in the city of Constantine, so it is likely, and I say this loosely, that it was for his use. Here are a couple of coins of some interest.

I have been reading "Against the Galileans", by Julian. He literally picks apart their religion with words from their own book. It was something to read. You should read that and ask some of them the following question. If anything, you will see some mad people! They hate the inconsistencies of their own work, especially when you use reason and intellect in exposing them. I always tell my friends that I do not need to make up lies about Christianity, the Good Book does that enough.

- Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. Pp. xvii + 300. ISBN 0-415-03487-6. - J. Bidez, La vie de l'empereur Julien, deuxieme tirage, Paris 1930, 219-224 It seems that his connection to Mithras is more than just speculation, but as Ursus said "the connection between Mithraism and the esoteric philosophies of the day have yet to be fully discovered". But given the material available, I dont think one can say he was not a member of the cult. If for Propaganda reasons alone, he most likely was, given its popularity amongst the soldiers. If anyone has any links to his work 'Hymn to King Helios', or any information on the mysterious Maximus, I would be in your debt.

You have always have good replies Ursus. Thanks for the encouragement. I am looking into this in depth, and I will post anything I find to get thoughts from you guys. I saw mention of a Mithraeum built by Julian in Constantinople. I will look to see if there is a source attached, or wild speculation.

-An entry from The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics by Chas S. Clifton. Published in 1992 by ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, California. (Polish edition: Encyklopedia herezji i heretyk

I am pondering potential research topics for graduate school, and I have been reading various threads on this forum, as well as researching on my own. I have yet to see discussion, or sources, and I may be wrong, as I have not yet read everything, of the significance of Julian's initiation into the cult of Mithras, if he indeed was in it. Given the similarities between the two religions, it seems to me that Julian would take particular affront to Christianity. It would be an angle to look at, if it has not already been done. I have begun looking into the introduction of Sol Invictus by Aurelian, and the events followed with Constantine, and eventually Julian. Now I am not sure if Mithraism was as widespread as some say, or small as others postulate, but it does seem to be significant nonetheless, and the similarities with Christianity are significant enough to warrant a closer look. This is just in the initial stages, and I wanted to seek out thoughts and opinions of educated men on the subject. I am open to any and all ideas. once again thank you for your time.

He was trying to modernize Paganism eh? Clever. If he had won we could well have seminaries devoted to Jupiter or Athena, rather than to christian studies. Does anyone know much about this Pagan Advisor of his, Maximus?

"A horseman appeared through the dust charging at full gallop. He rode up and aimed his cavalry lance directly at the Emperor.It found its mark. The spear grazed julian's arm, pierced his ribs and ended up in the lower part of his liver. It was a double- bladed spear. so sharp that as julian tried to pull it out he cut the fingers of his right hand to the bone". This is a direct quote from Adrian Murdoch's "The Last Pagan". I am not sure of the source he used, but it sounds similar to Ammianus, but what I found interesting is that Murdoch claims that Shapur offered a large, and public award for Julian's death. That reward was never claimed, which helped fuel the rumors it was a Christian Legionnare. I am still reading this book, so sources he used will be forthcoming.

I have begun the downloads. I appreciate those who offer such things to the masses. Thank you.

Forgive me if this is in the wrong forum, but it pertains to religion in the late Empire. I have been reading "Julian the Apostate, Documents and Debates in Ancient History", by Shaun Tougher. He poses several questions that must be answered given the polarity over Julian in documents and debates pertaining to him. These are a few questions that he said fuel the fascination with the Pagan Emperor. 1. Was Julian attempting to replace Christianity with his own demanding brand of pagan monotheism, in which Mithraism was the key? 2. Or was he in fact a much more traditional Pagan, happy for the plethora of Gods to have their devotees? I would like your learned opinions on the matter.

mefufeecgagmn My wife is now interested in her name, so this is for a female. I can have her register if it is necessary. By the way, the second translation for me was awesome. My real name is Augustine, but I did not think it a family name, but I was curious if it would be used. Again thank you.

As well, he was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, whose family claimed descendence from Aeneas, and the Goddess Venus through him. So not only propaganda, but a way to show himself as the living embodiment of Rome's founding and strengthen his connection to the myths and legend. Brilliant if u ask me. In the article, it says that "old" sources spoke of his rededication of the Cave, and the placing of a white Eagle in its dome. Does anyone know this source?

Does anyone know if this was just announced at a news conference, or is there a journal that their work has been published?

An eagle in the center! Wow, this is amazing news.

UdunregniZeaatnhes I hope that is better. Its a long first name and last! Thanks again!

Could you also do hnazatsneuledeanugilrne as well. I am adopted, and am curious. What you created was for my adopted name. I am interested what my birth name will yield, given what my real name is! of course i cant tell you, but i will after. Thanks again, this is awesome.

Thanks Cato, your replies are very helpful to me.

The analogy was not meant to be dramatic, but for this reason only. We know that Augustus altered the Republic forever, and while no formal announcement was made, it was no longer the government that had been before, but then again, what government truly is. Are we the same as the United States of the beginning? I am sure you would get the same responses from certain sects pertaining to secret police, murders, exiles, loss of freedoms and what not, but we are still that Constitutional Republic, not an Empire. We have just evolved, for better or worse. Was it an abrupt change, yes, but the Julio-Claudians were not solely responsible. Did not Sulla alter the Republics way of doing things during his Dictatorship?. Did not Caesar? However, despite these changes, later leaders made an effort to restore Republic values, and as I initially stated, Julian seemed to believe he served the Republic. My point is that it does not seem, and I use the word seem, because I do not know anything for certain, to be a conscious effort by Octavian, or later "Emperors" to create an Empire. If someone has knowledge contrary, please let me know, for that is my aim here. I think the way I see it, and I may be wrong, is that yes things were different, more restricting for some, and now an Emperor was the true power, but the Government itself was still the Roman Republic, but as we now know, it was just not the Republic from long ago, but what we would equate to an Empire. I have learned much these past few days here from comments by Cato, Kosmo and the other participants. That is why I came here, because you are intelligent, and offer not just opinion, but facts and resources to back your ideas up.

It is easy, with the hindsight of so many years, to say the Republic died, and an Empire rose from the ashes. However, I keep asking myself, was Augustus' aim to create Empire, or only to create a Republic that fit his aims and goals. Like today, do the Democrats, or Republicans truly wish to destroy this Constitutional Republic? They do things that definitely alter and change our country, but it is still America. We now know, through study that these early men did destroy the values of the Old Republic, yet if Julian stated he was defending the Republic, then perhaps they thought they were. What would a citizen say? I live in the Republic, or I live in the Empire? As mentioned earlier, Roman's loathed Kings, and while the balance of power had shifted, it may be within reason that these men saw themselves as caretakers of this Republic which had stood for so many years. I wonder now, if the Roman Empire is nothing more than a designation, just as the Byzantine Empire was, afterall, we know that people considered themselves Romans, not Byzantines. And it seems, even though this was monarchy, it still grasped the image of the Republic. I just dont see proof of one of those Star Wars moment where the Emperor announces the reformation of a new Empire. Yet, there are smarter men and women here, which is why I brought this up, so that we might consider it more in depth.

hnazatsneuledeanugilrne or namllotsleioanenn I am Male.

Ammianus writes "Silvanus expressed his indignation that, while unworthy persons had been raised to the consulship and to other high dignities, he and Ursicinus alone, after the frequent and great toils which they had endured for the sake of the republic, had been so despised that he himself had been accused of treason in consequence of the examination of some slaves, and had been exposed to an ignoble trial" and later "In this memorable war, which deserves to be compared with those against the Carthaginians or the Gauls, yet was accompanied, with very little loss to the republic, Julian triumphed as a fortunate and successful leader". There are many more examples, but it does not seem to be a slip of the tongue. Perhaps to them it was still the Republic in name. This makes me wonder. Is it ever called the "Roman Empire" by contemporary historians or writers?

The passages were translated by Wagner and Erfurdt's edition, published at Leipzig in 1808. Thats all I know. I got the link to the translation in another topic here at this site. But as I mentioned, it was not just Julian, but Constantius, and even Ammianus himself who use the word Republic. It just struck me odd because this is about 400 years after Augustus.

Something to appease the common man and soldier then eh? Clever. Constantius had absolute power, but they still persisted, superfically, at least, that nothing had changed. I wonder if other Historians refer to it as Republic as well? Thanks for the information my friend.

According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian the Apostate is credited with speaking the following. "The difficulty of my situation, O brave and faithful champions of myself and of the republic, who have often with me exposed your lives for the welfare of the provinces, requires that, since you have now by your resolute decision raised me, your Caesar, to the highest of all dignities, I should briefly set before you the state of affairs, in order that safe and prudent remedies for their new condition may be devised" Even Constantius is credited with saying the following at Julians investment as Caesar. "We stand here before you, most excellent defenders of the republic, to avenge with one unanimous spirit the common dangers of the state. And how I propose to provide for it I will briefly explain to yon, as impartial judges". My question may be naive, but did those who lived under Rome's rule, even as late as Julian's reign, still believe they lived in the famed Republic? I saw mention of the word Republic even by Ammianus himself in the text, though I have not found that section, but soon will. Was it truly ever called the Roman Empire? Or is this yet another historical designation like the "Byzantine" Empire. I would appreciate your educated thoughts, so I may understand this more clearly.