Ammianus Marcellinus - the Last Great Roman Historian

Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 330–390) was the last of the great Roman historians, making his “The Chronicles of Events” the last of the ancient classics. He originally titled his work Rerum gestarum libri, and it was comprised of 31 books. As Xenophon deliberately continued the history of Thucydides’ “Peloponnesian Wars,” Ammianus declares his purpose to continue from the end of another work that breaks off abruptly, Tacitus’ “Histories.” Both new authors knowingly took on the challenging burden of succeeding the greatest writers of their milieu. Thucydides is known as the “historian’s historian” due to his unflinching focus on the facts of events and flaws of human nature that drove the wars. Tacitus is ranked among the greatest of Latin history writers, along with Sallust and Livy, his work acknowledged as literary masterpieces. Though less known, the book jacket puts Ammianus in the league of the historians Livy and Tacitus.

??????????????? Ammianus was born in AD 330 in a noble Greek family in Antioch and served in the Roman army in numerous campaigns in Gaul and Persia. His military career spanned the reigns of Constantius II (AD 337-361) through Julian (AD 361-363) and Jovian (AD 363-364). His writing implies a well-educated scholar who frequently references his expansive readings of the classics including ancient Greeks back to Homer and famous Romans such as Cicero. His writing is vividly colorful, and he includes all the elements we find in the greatest historians starting with Herodotus, including meticulous recording of events, rich rhetorical exercises in speeches, informative and entertaining digressions on natural science, geography and sociology, and lofty philosophical observations.

??????????????? We rely in this chapter on the Penguin Classics edition of Ammianus Marcellinus’ “The Later Roman Empire (354-378 AD),” first published in 1986. The material was selected and translated by Walter Hamilton (1908-1988), who was an Honorary Fellow at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and Master from 1967 to 1978. The Introduction and Notes were written by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, currently Professor of Roman Studies and Director of Research in the Faculty of Classics at the University of Cambridge.

??????????????? Of the 31 original books that Ammianus wrote, this volume includes those that we have, 14-31. Sources document that the earlier books were lost by the sixth century. Wallace-Hadrill provides the historic perspective on the original scope of this history in the opening of his Introduction.

In his closing words Ammianus indicates the starting-point of his work: the accession of Nerva in 96. In some ways this is a surprising revelation. The books that survive (14-31) cover events within the author’s own lifetime. … The figure of Julian is in fact the heart of this history; the period from his appointment as Caesar to his death forms the core – Books 15-25. What precedes Book 15 is in a sense prelude; what follows Book 25 is marked off as postlude, an afterthought.

??????????????? Some preliminary information helps to understand the terms Ammianus uses frequently. “Caesar” is the title or rank just below and denotes the heir and likely successor to the Emperor, who is formally known as the “Augustus”. And the central figure in Ammianus’ history is the Augustus Julian, a nephew of the great Constantine I. He is sometimes referred to as Julian the Apostate, who fashioned himself a philosopher like Marcus Aurelius, and although he tolerated Christianity which had been raised to the state religion of Rome by Constantine, Julian was determined to revive paganism. Ammianus refers to these developments in his history.

??????????????? As we have seen in so many editions from fine publishers like Penguin, Oxford, Landmark and others, the front matter and back matter of these books add not only to our understanding but also to our enjoyment of the ancient works. Later in the Introduction (p. 24-25), Wallace-Hadrill comments on Ammianus’ extensive digressions, which along with the vivid combat descriptions, add to the reader’s fascination.

The digression was another traditional feature of ancient historical writing, but Ammianus uses it on a scale unparalleled since the father of history, Herodotus. For his digressions may seem bewildering – in number, length and diversity of subject matter … siege engines (23.4), the obelisk (17.4), the calendar (26.1), the plague (19.4), the causes of earthquakes (17.7), the eclipse (20.3), or the rainbow (20.3). There are delights in these digressions, like the picture of the Gallic wife who enters the fray on her husband’s behalf with arms flailing like a catapult (15.12).

??????????????? Ammianus provides a whirlwind review of the entire history of Rome with his own colorful characterizations of each stage at 14.6. In these few sentences he reprises the history of the Roman Republic that Livy covers in his first few books where the Romans go to war with their closest neighbors, beginning with the Sabines. He continues in the fewest words to many wars, including the three Punic Wars reported by Polybius and Caesar’s 10 years of Gallic Wars “beyond the Alps”. He surveys the centuries into the Roman Empire and the civilization it establishes.

From its first infancy to the end of its childhood, a period comprising some three hundred years, the Roman people were engaged in wars close to its walls; next, in its adolescence, after various grievous struggles, it penetrated beyond the Alps and the sea; in its early and its mature manhood it won laurels of victory in every part of the great globe; finally, when it verged on old age and owed its occasional victories only to reputation, it gave itself over to a more peaceful way of life. The venerable city, having set its foot on the proud necks of savage peoples and given them laws to serve as the eternal foundation and guarantee of liberty, took over the course which a thrifty, wise and rich parent does with his children, and handed over to the Caesars the administration of its heritage.

??????????????? In 355, a powerful general, the “stout rebel Silvanus” had allowed his troops to declare him Augustus, threatening the emperor Constantius. It is resolved to relieve this rebel officer by sending a representative in the person of a recently disgraced but very experienced general, “now became the wisest of generals, the great comrade-in-arms of the emperor Constantine” in Ammianus’ almost humorously ironic phrasing. In the next sentence, he reveals the other side of this rehabilitation of Ursicinus. “Great efforts were certainly to be made … but if they failed … Ursicinus … would be utterly destroyed, and a very formidable stumbling block removed.” Insights like this, boldly stated about the emperor himself, demonstrate Ammianus’ courageous emulation of the great Tacitus. In this action, the author describes his own participation in this delegation, and provides us with a sense of his high rank in the military at 15.5

When this was settled Ursicinus received orders to set out. He was accompanied, at his own request, by some tribunes and ten officers of the general staff to help in meeting the needs of the situation. Among the latter were my colleague Verinian and myself; all the rest were chosen by the emperor. … each of us preoccupied solely by fear for his own safety. We were like condemned criminals thrown before fierce wild beasts.”

??????????????? After this confession of understandable fear, Ammianus takes a philosophical stance, and quotes his most frequently referred authority, Cicero.

“Although the state most to be desired is the permanent continuance of undisturbed good fortune, nevertheless such a smooth course of life does not provide so piquant a sensation as a change to better things from misery and disaster.”

??????????????? Ammianus offers a tremendous amount of combat reporting, always vivid and voluminous, written from the point of view of cavalry and infantry fighting the enemy face to face in deadly contests. At 16.12 we read of the Battle of Strasbourg in 357, where the Romans are barely surviving the onslaught of the Germans. He puts us in the battle: “Obstinately they struggled, hand to hand and shield to shield; the welkin rang with the shouts of the victors and the screams of the wounded.” At one point the Roman calvary is driven back upon the infantry lines and Ammianus treats us to a strangely elevated exhortation amid such turmoil. This incident reminds us that from most ancient times the greatest battle leaders, from the Spartan Brasidas to the Macedonian Alexander to the Roman Julius Caesar, put themselves at the front of the most intense fighting. And we see again how Ammianus always aims for and often achieves grandeur in his writing.

The Caesar, seeing from a distance his cavalry turning to flight, put spurs to his horse and threw himself into their path. He was recognized by the purple dragon attached to the tip of a long lance and streaming on the wind like the cast skin of a snake, and the tribune of the squadron turned back, pale and trembling, to renew the fight. The Caesar took the course usual in moments of crisis, and addressed the men in terms of mild reproach: “Where are we off to, my brave fellows? Don’t you know that flight never saved anyone? It is simply the proof of the folly of a vain enterprise. Let us return to our comrades, and at least have a share in their glory, even though we have thoughtlessly abandoned them in their fight for our country.” This tactful speech brought them all back to their duty.

??????????????? Ammianus makes frequent references to ancient history, so we must assume not only that he was extremely well-read, but he was also writing for a sophisticated and educated audience who will appreciate these learned references. In this case, at 17.11, just after we have read of the great successes of Julian, the hero of this entire work, in defeating and subjugating the Alamanni and other Germanic tribes, the courtiers and confidantes of the emperor Constantius are mocking and belittling him. Ammianus offers an amusing array of specific insults, including “His victories are becoming a bore” “Babbling mole,” “ape in purple,” and “Greek dilettante.” He compares this treatment great heroes of history and teaches us new lessons of famous men whom we have read about in earlier accounts.

Cimon, son of Militiades … destroyed a countless host of Persians … was accused of drunkenness. … Scipio Aemilianus, whose unerring alertness brought about the destruction of two powerful cities bent on the ruin of Rome, was represented … as a sleepy-head. … Pompey’s distractors … Such was the futile argument employed by those who barked at the heels of a man whom we have the clearest proof to have had no equal as a hero and a patriot.

??????????????? Ammianus displays more of his knowledge of the classics in a story about the value of circumspect silence in desperate circumstances, and after citing ancient history, he carries his lesson on to an entertaining illustration in the natural world. In this case, he begins with Aristotle’s advice to his great-nephew Callisthenes who accompanied Alexander on his expeditions as an historian. Ammianus must assume his readers know this advice was tragically disregarded. He is describing the self-induced downfall of a man named Barbatio caused by his own malicious gossip. At the end of 18.3 we read this fascinating dissertation on the sensibility of silence.

He cannot have known the wise saying of old Aristotle, who, when he sent his pupil and kinsman on a mission to king Alexander, repeatedly enjoined him to speak as little as possible in the presence of a man in whose tongue lay the power of life and death, and then only in pleasant terms. … even irrational animals protect themselves at times by observing dead silence. … When wild geese … approach the Taurus mountains, where eagles are common, their fear of these formidable birds leads them to stop up their beaks with small stones, to prevent a cry escaping them, however hard-pressed. But when they have passed over these hills in rapid flight they let the stones fall, and so pursue their way free from fear.

??????????????? At 20.5 Ammianus tells how Romans are still in the thrall of the prophetic power of dreams. Book 20 is sub-titled “Julian Hailed as Augustus” and we read how his career has been shadowed by the supernatural. Unlike Julius Caesar tragically ignoring his dream on the Ides of March, Julian listens to his unearthly advisor.

Julian, however, told his most intimate friends that on the night before he was declared Augustus he saw in a dream a figure in the shape of the traditional Genius of Rome, which addressed him in a tone of reproach as follows: “For a long time, Julian, I have been watching in secret at your door, desiring to place you in a higher position, but more than once I have departed feeling myself rebuffed. If I find no admission even now, when public opinion is unanimous, I shall go away dejected and sorrowful. Do not allow yourself to forget I shall then dwell with you no longer.”

??????????????? Ammianus recounts another story of a future-telling vision in Book 21, sub-titled Death of Constantius, and he then expands the concept to Homer and ancient philosophers who wrote about these same phenomena. In this case, at 21.14, Constantius has “a vision in the night, before he was quite asleep.” Moving beyond the particulars, Ammianus expands to find this concept of “guardian angels” in the ancients. Readers of this book will recall Socrates’ advising daimon, and Pythagoras’ recall of his own reincarnations.

Divines believe that a particular spirit of this kind is assigned to every man at birth to direct his course, as far as the decrees of fate permit, but that is visible to very few, in fact only to those of unusual merit. … We are given to understand by the immortal poems of Homer that it was not the gods of Olympus who spoke to the heroes and stood by and helped them in battle, but the familiar spirits which belonged to them. We are told it was by their particular support that Pythagoras and Socrates and Numa Pompilius became famous, not to mention the elder Scipio, and as some believe, Marius, and Octavian, who was first to bear the title of Augustus.

??????????????? In Book 22.5, we read how Julian earned his sobriquet “The Apostate” by his actions as emperor in 361. It had been only a few decades since his uncle, Constantine the Great had his vision of the cross of light in the sky at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 that had led to his legalization of Christianity, and his organization of the church through the Council of Arles in 314 and Nicaea in 325.

Although Julian from his earliest boyhood had nursed an inclination towards the worship of the pagan gods, which gradually grew into an ardent passion as he grew older, fear of the consequences had kept him from practicing its rites except in greatest secrecy. Now, however, that his fear was removed and he saw that the time had come when he could do as he liked, he revealed what was in his heart and directed in plain unvarnished terms that the temples should be opened, sacrifices brought to their altars, and the worship of the old gods restored.

??????????????? Ammianus frequently expresses admiration for the virtues of Julian, as at Book 24.4, in a chapter titled the “Sack of Moazamalcha” where he writes of the aftermath of a bloody victory in 363 in comparing his hero to two of the greatest heroes in history, Alexander the Great and Scipio Africanus who defeated Hannibal and Carthage.

There followed a division of the spoils in accordance with each man’s service and deserts. Julian, who was easily satisfied, took for himself only a dumb boy who was adept at conveying with graceful gestures all that he knew in sign language, together with three gold pieces; … He would not touch or even look at any of the lovely young girls who were captured, though Persian women are renowned for their beauty. In this he followed the example of Alexander and Africanus, who would not allow themselves to succumb to desire after showing themselves invincible by hardship.

??????????????? Later in this war with Persians, at 24.6 in the “Engagement outside Ctesiphon,” Ammianus follows in his pattern of providing his readers with rich references to the classic histories and myths they were all familiar with. First, he recounts the terror inspired by war elephants that Arrian described in Alexander’s battle with Poros at the Hydaspes, and as Polybius reported the terrible fright they caused in Hannibal’s defeat of the Romans at Trebia. He then describes Julian’s combat tactics as like those described in the Iliad.

The Persians had opposed us with squadrons of cuirassiers drawn up in such serried ranks … supported by detachments of infantry who moved in compact formation carrying long, curved shields … Behind them came elephants looking like moving hills. Their huge bodies threatened destruction to all who approached, and past experience had taught us to dread them.

On our side the emperor followed the Homeric tactic of placing his weakest infantry units between lines of other troops, not in the van, where if they disgraced themselves by giving way might carry the whole army with them, nor yet in the rear behind all the centuries, where they could turn tail with no one to stop them. He himself with light-armed auxiliaries kept galloping between front and rear.

??????????????? In 25.3, we read of the death of Julian from the wound of a cavalry spear “directed by no one knows whom.” He is wounded through his ribs and into his liver, and lies bleeding to death back at his camp, surrounded by his troops. Here Ammianus refers to the legendary death scene of the greatest Theban hero, Epaminondas, in the highest tribute to Julian. He recalls that the Theban, as he lay dying of a spear wound, asked “with particular anxiety after his shield. When he saw it near him he died happy.” At his death, Ammianus reminds us that Julian was a philosopher, who like Socrates in the “Phaedo” rebukes his companions for their sadness, “saying it was beneath them to mourn a prince who was restored to heaven and numbered with the stars. This kept them silent, while Julian engaged in a deep discussion with the philosophers Maximus and Priscus on the sublime nature of the soul.”

??????????????? Ammianus provides an elegy to Julian in 25.4, where he prominently places the “cardinal virtues” which Plato has Socrates explain in the “Republic” but which are here simply ascribed to “Philosophers.”

Julian must be reckoned a man of historic stature, conspicuous for his glorious deed and his innate majesty. Philosophers tell us that there are four cardinal virtues: self-control, wisdom, justice and courage; and, in addition to these, certain practical gifts: military skill, dignity, prosperity and generosity. All these Julian cultivated both singly and as a whole with utmost care.

??????????????? Ammianus finishes his history in Book 31 with the terrible onslaught of the Goths from the east into the Roman Empire in what is now western Türkiye. The sub-titles of the chapters summarize the development of the massive calamity: “Omens of Gothic Disaster,” “Goths Cross the Danube,” “Goths Revolt,” “Goths Devastate Thrace,” and finally “Battle of Adrianople.” The Germanic Goth cavalry overwhelm the Roman infantry with both greater numbers and irresistible ferocity. The defeat is so devastating and thorough that even the bodies of the Augustus, the? Emperor Valens, and the Caesar Decius were never found. The highest-ranking dead include the distinguished Trajan and Sebastian, thirty-five tribunes, and the marshals of the stable and palace. At 31.14, Ammianus concludes the summary of losses of this battle as equal to Rome’s greatest defeat.

It is certain that hardly a third of our army escaped. No battle in our history except Cannae was such a massacre, though more than once the Romans have been the playthings of fortune and suffered temporary reverses, and many disastrous struggles are recorded with grief in the legendary sagas of Greece.

??????????????? Ammianus began his history with the declared intention to continue the “Histories” of Tacitus, transitioning the two works during the reign of the Emperor Nerva in 96 AD, an approach like the way Xenophon took up from Thucydides in his “History of the Peloponnesian Wars” that abruptly breaks off in 411 BC. And just as Xenophon emulated Thucydides’ precise historical rigor, Ammianus emulates Tacitus’ grandeur in his writing. ???????? Ammianus ends his history in a way reminiscent of Xenophon’s sign-off at the end of his Hellenika, where he wrote: “To this point, then, let it be written by me. Perhaps someone else will be concerned with what happened after this.” The final paragraph Ammianus has left us tells us what he has achieved, and what he leaves to future writers, never knowing he himself was the last of the great Roman historians.

This is the history of the events from the reign of the emperor Nerva to the death of Valens, which I, a former soldier and a Greek, have composed to the best of my ability. It claims to be the truth, which I have never ventured to pervert either by silence or a lie. The rest I leave to be written by better men whose abilities are in their prime. But if they choose to undertake the task I advise them to cast what they have to say in the grand style.

?

?