This source you have provided is obvious Christian propaganda. It
approaches the subject as though anyone who dared deviate from
Christian instruction is wicked or bad. Just look at this sentence:
Originally posted by Timotheus
His father sent him some time after to Nicomedia,
to be instructed in the Christian religion, by the bishop of Eusebius,
his kinsman, but his principles were corrupted by the pernicious
doctrines of Ecebolius the rhetorician, and Maximus the magician.
So in other words, any views or philosophies not in line with the Chuch
are automatically pernicious, and their effects are to corrupt?
Obviously your source is not balanced and has no tolerance for other
religious viewpoints or philosophies. Julian himself received one of
the finest educations available and sat at the feet of some of the
leading scholars of his day. He was exposed to a wide range of
perspectives, Christian, pagan and otherwise. He was far better
informed and educated than most men of his day and throughout his life
showed clear scholarly talent, and yet he chose paganism. Let's move on.
Originally posted by Timotheus
Constantius, dying the year 361, Julian succeeded him, and had
no sooner attained the imperial dignity than he renounced Christianity
and embraced paganism, which had for some years fallen into great
disrepute.
Fallen into disrepute? Hardly, instead it had been discarded by the
imperial family and persecuted by them. Paganism was still widely
popular, especially in Rome itself. Your source shows clear errors in
how it frames its information. Moving on.....
Originally posted by Timotheus
The persecution raged dreadfully about the latter end of the year
363; but, as many of the particulars have not been handed down
to us, it is necessary to remark in general, that in Palestine
many were burnt alive, others were dragged by their feet through
the streets naked until they expired; some were scalded to death,
many stoned, and great numbers had their brains beaten out with
clubs.
No particulars have been handed down to us? Then where is the
historical validity in these claims? If your source wants to say people
died during Julian's reign, it may do so. But let's get real here, you
have provided us with a few specific citations of actual murders, only
one of which (Basil) is directly attributed to Julian himself. By 4th
century standards, this is incredibly good.
Overall Julian reinvigorated the Roman military and was far more
tolerant than the Christian Roman Emperors. Julian was a conscientious
ruler, gifted with a learned mind and endowed with a far better
education than most of his predecessors or any of his successors.
Originally posted by Timotheus
Though he restored the idolatrous worship, he made
no public edicts against Christianity. He recalled all banished
pagans, allowed the free exercise of religion to every sect, but
deprived all Christians of offices at court, in the magistracy,
or in the army. He was chaste, temperate, vigilant, laborious,
and pious; yet he prohibited any Christian from keeping a school
or public seminary of learning, and deprived all the Christian
clergy of the privileges granted them by Constantine the Great
As your source notes, his personal conduct was nothing short of
excellant. He reversed the persecutions instituted under the Christians
only a couple of decades before and in a bid to see they did not return
he constrained Christians in their access to powerful positions. He
reversed the disproportionate and excessive privileges awarded to the
Christians and as your source notes, allowed free exercise of religion
(something Christianity never really grasped, we had to wait for the
arrival of secularism before other religions in the West could truly be
practiced with a guarantee of expression and safety).
This emperor was the son of Julius Constantius, and the nephew
of Constantine the Great. He studied the rudiments of grammar
under the inspection of Mardonius, a eunuch, and a heathen of
Constantinople. His father sent him some time after to Nicomedia,
to be instructed in the Christian religion, by the bishop of Eusebius,
his kinsman, but his principles were corrupted by the pernicious
doctrines of Ecebolius the rhetorician, and Maximus the magician.
Constantius, dying the year 361, Julian succeeded him, and had
no sooner attained the imperial dignity than he renounced Christianity
and embraced paganism, which had for some years fallen into great
disrepute. Though he restored the idolatrous worship, he made
no public edicts against Christianity. He recalled all banished
pagans, allowed the free exercise of religion to every sect, but
deprived all Christians of offices at court, in the magistracy,
or in the army. He was chaste, temperate, vigilant, laborious,
and pious; yet he prohibited any Christian from keeping a school
or public seminary of learning, and deprived all the Christian
clergy of the privileges granted them by Constantine the Great.
Biship Basil made himself first famous by his opposition to Arianism,
which brought upon him the vengeance of the Arian bishop of Constantinople;
he equally opposed paganism. The emperor's agents in vain tampered
with Basil by means of promises, threats, and racks, he was firm
in the faith, and remained in prison to undergo some other sufferings,
when the emperor came accidentally to Ancyra. Julian determined
to examine Basil himself, when that holy man being brought before
him, the emperor did every thing in his power to dissuade him
from persevering in the faith. Basil not only continued as firm
as ever, but, with a prophetic spirit foretold the death of the
emperor, and that he should be tormented in the other life. Enraged
at what he heard, Julian commanded that the body of Basil should
be torn every day in seven different parts, until his skin and
flesh were entirely mangled. This inhuman sentence was executed
with rigor, and the martyr expired under its severities, on June
28, A.D. 362.
Donatus, bishop of Arezzo, and Hilarinus, a hermit, suffered about
the same time; also Gordian, a Roman magistrate. Artemius, commander
in chief of the Roman forces in Egypt, being a Christian, was
deprived of his commission, then of his estate, and lastly of
his head.
The persecution raged dreadfully about the latter end of the year
363; but, as many of the particulars have not been handed down
to us, it is necessary to remark in general, that in Palestine
many were burnt alive, others were dragged by their feet through
the streets naked until they expired; some were scalded to death,
many stoned, and great numbers had their brains beaten out with
clubs. In Alexandria, innumerable were the martyrs who suffered
by the sword, burning, crucifixion and stoning. In Arethusa,
several were ripped open, and corn being put into their bellies,
swine were brought to feed therein, which, in devouring the grain,
likewise devoured the entrails of the martyrs, and in Thrace,
Emilianus was burnt at a stake; and Domitius murdered in a cave,
whither he had fled for refuge.
The emperor, Julian the apostate, died of a wound which he received
in his Persian expedition, A.D. 363, and even while expiring,
uttered the most horrid blasphemies. He was succeeded by Jovian,
who restored peace to the Church.
After the decease of Jovian, Valentinian succeeded to the empire,
and associated to himself Valens, who had the command in the east,
and was an Arian and of an unrelenting and persecuting disposition.
BTW, I rather like Julian the Apostate, he was a
good deal more inspired than most of the Emperors of his age.
Inspired to murder!
He personally was not responsible for murders on the scale of most
other Emperors who killed off relatives and fellow courtiers. His
persecutions of Christianity were also mild compared to the
persecutions the Christian Emperors dished out to the pagan (and to
other Christians who so much as dared disagree over triflingly minor
matters of faith). Overall he was a hard working and capable man who
did his best for his nations and probably would have achieved great
things had he only reigned longer.
Let's not forget Byzantine
Emperor Michael the Sot (the 3rd), earning his nickname through
extravegant debauchery and drinking.
BTW, I rather like Julian the Apostate, he was a good deal more inspired than most of the Emperors of his age.
Both of them called so,by their enemies and their puppet-historians.
Julian by christian historians,
and Michael by those of the new Macedonian dynasty-iconophils.
Its surprising how some capable and good emperors where treated by byzantine historians.
For example those of the "Isaurian" dyansty.
Leo III and his son Constantine,won some brilliant battles,actually
saving the empire by Saracens and Bulgarians, but they were called
"isaurians"-a tribe of southeastern asia minor ,although its probable
that they were from Byzantine Syria.
Isaurians had a really bad reputation as a tribe of thiefs and
murderers ,so these bad iconoclast emperors deserved this nickname!
I think Michael probably did earn his nickname through his behaviour.
He was an iconodule himself and the son of the arch-iconodule the
Empress Theodora. Besides, the Emperor Leo VI was thought to perhaps
have harboured loyalty to Michael through the possibility of being his
son.
The Isaurians were indeed a bunch with a bad reputation, earnt in the
5th century when these ruly warriors were used to replace the German
foederati. Though it was not unsual to name dynasties after their place
of origin and to do so in a mistaken fashion. The Amorium dynasty was,
whilst the Macedonian dynasty was also (and wrongly named at that).
That got me thinking, how about Alexius V Murtzuphlus, Murtzuphlus
meaning "bushy eyebrowed" or something like that. Where his nickname
came from is rather obvious.
You are right MIchael was iconophil/dule ,but the historians of the Macedonian dynasty really destroyed his reputation,in order to "purify" his asassination by Basil I,the founder of the macedonian dynasty.
(The story is really old-take a look at "bad Saul" ,who was trying to kill "poor David" ..bad poor David,just asassinate the legal king and took his place
As for the Isaurians,i ve written that they were named so,although probably Syrians.
Let's not forget Byzantine
Emperor Michael the Sot (the 3rd), earning his nickname through
extravegant debauchery and drinking.
BTW, I rather like Julian the Apostate, he was a good deal more inspired than most of the Emperors of his age.
Both of them called so,by their enemies and their puppet-historians.
Julian by christian historians,
and Michael by those of the new Macedonian dynasty-iconophils.
Its surprising how some capable and good emperors where treated by byzantine historians.
For example those of the "Isaurian" dyansty.
Leo III and his son Constantine,won some brilliant battles,actually
saving the empire by Saracens and Bulgarians, but they were called
"isaurians"-a tribe of southeastern asia minor ,although its probable
that they were from Byzantine Syria.
Isaurians had a really bad reputation as a tribe of thiefs and
murderers ,so these bad iconoclast emperors deserved this nickname!
I think Michael probably did earn his nickname through his behaviour.
He was an iconodule himself and the son of the arch-iconodule the
Empress Theodora. Besides, the Emperor Leo VI was thought to perhaps
have harboured loyalty to Michael through the possibility of being his
son.
The Isaurians were indeed a bunch with a bad reputation, earnt in the
5th century when these ruly warriors were used to replace the German
foederati. Though it was not unsual to name dynasties after their place
of origin and to do so in a mistaken fashion. The Amorium dynasty was,
whilst the Macedonian dynasty was also (and wrongly named at that).
That got me thinking, how about Alexius V Murtzuphlus, Murtzuphlus
meaning "bushy eyebrowed" or something like that. Where his nickname
came from is rather obvious.
Let's not forget Byzantine Emperor Michael the Sot (the 3rd), earning his nickname through extravegant debauchery and drinking.
BTW, I rather like Julian the Apostate, he was a good deal more inspired than most of the Emperors of his age.
Both of them called so,by their enemies and their puppet-historians.
Julian by christian historians,
and Michael by those of the new Macedonian dynasty-iconophils.
Its surprising how some capable and good emperors where treated by byzantine historians.
For example those of the "Isaurian" dyansty.
Leo III and his son Constantine,won some brilliant battles,actually saving the empire by Saracens and Bulgarians, but they were called "isaurians"-a tribe of southeastern asia minor ,although its probable that they were from Byzantine Syria.
Isaurians had a really bad reputation as a tribe of thiefs and murderers ,so these bad iconoclast emperors deserved this nickname!
I dont think Ethelred the Unready was such a bad king, he just had a LOT of bad luck... If he would have been a really bad king, he would not have reigned that long. The name comes from Old-English, and apparently 'Unprepared' would have been a better translation, and was given because he became king at such a young age.
Or perhaps he was a bad king...
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum