Greatest ruler of antiquity

Mar 2013
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
What's your beef with Gibbon? He furthered the study, however imperfectly. Scaffolding my zealous friend, scaffolding.
That doesn’t not mean that the students of history at universities across the world learn their history from him and his tale tales. I actually don’t have much beef against Gibbon, his his double chin, headlice, tall tales and antisemitism. It is more the use of him as secondary source that will make the readers dumb that worry me, because as an educated historian I have to intervene when people use his fantasies as secondary sources since his works are refuted in the academia.

As stated: The works of Gibbon, are considered by the uneducated common people, as true; by the educated common people with critical thinking, as suspicious; and by the historians, as outdated spiced with tall tales.

Kookaburra Jack, the user who liked your post, is an eager reader of him, and that is the reason why he still believes in such stupid tall tale like the "Burning Library of Alexandria in 391" that actually never ever have found place since it was actually destroyed by the pagans themselves prior Constantine the Great. ;)

Yet, according to Ammianus, he was very well received at Antioch...
That was in the beginning when he entered the city in day 1. He first needs to fail in Antioch the following months before he can make himself unpopular.

and Ammianus even states that he was a health giving star.
That was in Sirmium in Balkan. Not in Antioch in which he alienated himself with the population and powerful groups, and thus stained the mood of his army before his disastrous campaign in Persia. How embarrassing for him.

Although he did not succeed in removing Christianity, he did act intelligently: (....)
What intelligent act? In not directly persecuting the Christians since he knew that it would endanger his position?

A lot of other Roman/Byzantine leaders also have wrote books on various topics without being such an inept ruler as Julian and getting their body carved into a relief under the feets of the Persians.

This demonstrates his lack of wisdom how?
That shows that he only received the title of emperor because of pure luck. Many other emperors had to fight and remove obstacles that Julian the Apostate probably would not have managed to solve giving his habits of alienating powerful people around him and taking disastrous military decisions as it happened in Persia.


They were competing contemporaneous theologies. He had a reasoned argument for his actions, which he believed were benevolent to the Empire.
I already knew the reason(s) for his banning of learning. With other words: Julian the Apostate is the only emperor after the conversion of Constantine into Christianity, who specifically banned Christians from teaching the learnings. And by doing this Julian has put shame over his character, legacy and religion.

What do you think about Julian’s disastrous campaign in Persia and about that beautiful Persian relief I have posted in my latest post?

Ok, I made a grandiose statement about Julian while thinking about what I perceive as virtues in Aurelius; however, you have made an absurd and somewhat offensive statement, which is quite paradoxical considering your diatribe about the stupidly of Julian.
Uhm? Julian the Apostate was PERHAPS a bit retarded or mentally ill giving all his actions where he banned the learning, employed his prophetic powers just to make the opposite choice of the outcome of the prophecies, or made some ill-prepared invasion in Persia that completely destroyed him. And all this in only 1 and half year.

If I remember right it has been argued that Constantine’s or some of his sons' killing of Julian’s family perhaps caused him somehow to be mentally ill and weak, and that could probably explain his erratic reign that completely abused the good ol’ Roman virtues.

Also, in term of body physique Julian the Apostate was short and with tiny arms if my mind serves me right.

I don't have anything if you like that Pagan failure's philosophy. But don't say he was "intelligent". Because he was not.
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions