Download Kelsey Grant

Grant 1
Kelsey Grant
Professor Adam Schor
Ammianus Marcellinus
There are many great and many controversial historical narratives
written during the classical period between roughly the eighth century BC
and lasting through the seventh century BC. Likewise, the ancient historians
that wrote these narratives were just as great and also just as controversial
when authors such as Thucydides and Livy embarked on tales of the
Peloponnesian War and The Founding of Rome.1 When scanning through
various classical historical narratives on the University of South Carolina
Library’s website such as The Church History and The Annals, the one that
stood out the most after some preliminary research was Ammianus
Marcellinus’ The Later Roman Empire (AD 354-378).2 Ammianus seemed to
be a very controversial and complex author from my preliminary research,
but once reading through this narrative, there was so much going on that it
was very difficult to fully grasp what exactly Ammianus’ full goals and
intentions were for writing the piece. Scholars constantly disagreed about
him and his agenda ranging from everyone such as Gavin Kelly making him
out to be a person of solitude to Edward Gibbon claiming that his writing was
1
2
Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War (Easton, 2000), and Livy. The Early History of Rome. (London Press, 1971).
www.sc.edu/library
Grant 2
one of the most insightful of the period, although it was not without fault.3
This led me then in the direction of not investigating an actual event that
Ammianus describes in his narrative, but Ammianus himself and his
credibility. Thus, the logical question to investigate becomes does Ammianus
Marcellinus convince his audience of his historical authority in his narrative,
The Later Roman Empire, or does he fall short and his possible hidden
messages and agendas show through?
Before I could begin to dissect Ammianus’ writings, I had to first get
background information on Ammianus and essentially who he was and where
he was coming from as a person. Ammianus tells his us in his last few
sentences of his narrative that, “...I, a former soldier and a Greek,...”.4
This is significant that he is a Greek born in Antioch because his original
work, Res Gestae, was written in Latin in Rome. This is important because
he is believed to be from an upper class, the ‘curial class’, and thus have
been thoroughly educated.5 Being educated means he could have written in
his native language of Greek, but he instead chose Latin because of his
fascination with Rome. He always looked at Rome on a pedestal, and wanted
to write in Latin because of the deep impact that it made on his life. He
constantly referenced Rome as the “Eternal City”, and his true passion for
Rome shows through on various instances such as, “...Rome, a city destined
3
Kelly, Galvin. Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. (Cambridge, 2008)) p. 70, and Gibbon, Edward.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume Three (Modern Library, 1932) p. 122.
4
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986) 31.16.7
5
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986) p. 14 (introduction)
Grant 3
to endure as long as the human race survives, was beginning its ascent to
world-wide renown, valour and good fortune, which are so often at variance,
conspired in an unbreakable bond to assist the steps by which it rose to
glory.”6
This does not mean that he did not find faults within the city or its
aristocracy as he harps on while writing, “At this time the government of the
Eternal City was in the hands of Orfitus, a man whose overbearing behaviour
went beyond the proper limits of the office of urban prefect which he held.” 7
These passages are key in possibly figuring out one of his possible agendas
for writing. From reading these sections, as well as various others, it became
clear to me that although Ammianus Marcellinus did not always agree with
Roman life in all aspects, he did want future readers to understand the
greatness of Rome for what the city really was to him. He writes of the faults
of the aristocracy, as mentioned above, and writes of the faults of the
common people, such as, “Of the lowest and poorest class, some spend the
night in bars, others shelter under the awnings of the theatres...”, but this
adds to his credibility and ultimate historical authority because he is not
naive to the world around him or omitting faults of his Eternal City.8
Thus, the first possible agenda that I believe he had was that he wanted
future generations to understand Rome’s greatness, but wanted them to
understand the faults of the people of Rome, and how it was the people, not
6
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 14.6
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 14.6
8
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 14.6.20
7
Grant 4
the great Eternal City herself, that would lead to its possible downfall,
though I do not believe he thought the city would ever fall completely. He
personifies Rome in a way and separates it from the people within it, and
this must be understood to grasp the first agenda mentioned above.
Much of Ammianus Marcellinus’ narrative is a military history.
Ammianus is the main source of information of the battles that we have from
this period, so his credibility about the events was not too appealing to
research to me. What was interesting, however, was the way he would write
his accounts of certain battles and their outcomes. The one aspect of
Ammianus that seemed to constantly show through was his extensive travels.
He provides the audience with vivid accounts of lands as far East as Egypt,
for example, “The city of (Egyptian) Thebes, founded in remote antiquity and
once famous for its imposing walls and its hundred gates...”.9 It is because
of his extensive travels that I believe he is able to tell much of the history
that he does, and in the vivid detail that he does, and most scholars
generally agree on this point.10
There are certain battles that Ammianus recounts that help his
historical authority because his telling of them, or their aftermath, are so
raw and emotional. The first of these is the siege of Amida. Ammianus is in
Amida when the city becomes under attack, and he leaves his men to escape
under the fall of darkness out of fear. He writes, “As it was getting dark and
9
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 17.4
Kelly, Galvin. Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. (Cambridge, 2008) p. 36-37.
10
Grant 5
while a crowd of our men was still keeping up the fight, hopeless as it was, I
and two others hid in an obscure corner of the town and escaped through an
unguarded postern under cover of night.”.11 This whole scene is crucial in
understanding Ammianus and his thought process during the time of the
siege and his writing of it afterwards. This is one of the few accounts of a
battle that he is so immersed in. The account of this battle is in first person
which really brings his audience closer to it and makes them more
empathetic towards him. Including the siege in his narrative was a very
calculated move by Ammianus to help with his historical authority because
he chooses to not just show all of Rome’s victories, but also their legions in
their most vulnerable times. It helps remind the reader that Ammianus is
human, and that the Roman soldiers were human as well.
The second of these is the battle at Salices. He writes to his audiences
that this particular battle with the barbarians was inconclusive, but morally a
major blow to the Romans. He goes into even more detail of this when
writing of the battle field that had really turned into a graveyard after the
battle saying, “Some of the dead who were men of note received such burial
as time and place allowed. The bodies of the rest were devoured by birds of
prey, which were accustomed to feast on corpses at that period; the proof of
this is that the battlefield is still white with bones.”.12 This raw picture that
Ammianus paints into the mind of his readers is so atrocious that it is
11
12
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 19.8.6
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 31.7.16
Grant 6
unfathomable to me how human beings could have done this to each other.
This description, however, did not come without criticism. Scholars such as
Gibbons argue that Ammianus did not participate in the battle of Salices, but
arrived only afterwards to see the gruesome sights.13 I, however, disagree
with this and think that Ammianus’ accounts of battles are his personal
experience of the events. What I do agree with scholars, such as Galvin
Kelly, on is that Ammianus always gives the reader his content or discontent
of a battle even if it is not clearly stated.14 I chose to incorporate the quote
out of Ammianus’ narrative that I did because I believe his discontent shows
through. He shows his content of his soldiers still fighting during the siege
even though be believes that their efforts are hopeless because the battle in
his mind is already lost. I, however, also believe this is a way to get the
discontent of his actions off of his chest. Retreating was very frowned upon
in the Roman army, so I am sure that his actions haunted him internally for
a long while.
At the end of Ammianus’ narrative, he gives his account of the Battle
of Adrianople that occurred in 378 AD. The Battle of Adrianople was a major
defeat in the eyes of Ammianus because for the Romans it was the worst
defeat they had seen in six hundred years as he explains when writing, “No
Battle in our history except Cannae was such as a massacre...”.15
13
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume III (Modern Library 1932). Chapter 26.
Kelly, Galvin. Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. (Cambridge, 2008). P. 33-37.
15
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 31.13.19
14
Grant 7
This battle is very crucial in terms of understanding his take on Rome at this
point. He chose to end his narrative with this battle at the end of his work
because it really shows the contrast between the great Eternal City that he
had written about so hopefully in the beginning of his narrative, and the
harsh reality that Rome was now in with the barbarians. A lot of Romans
died at this battle, and I think a little piece of Ammianus died inside as well.
All of these battles can lead up to a possible deeper message as
previously mentioned. While Ammianus does recount the battles to the best
of his knowledge and through his experiences, I think he writes a lot of them
out of fear and out of trying to cope with his inner demons. The fear is in
terms of what he fears for the future for Rome, and coping in terms of all of
the gruesome sights that he encounters numerous times such as, “We were
packed together to such a degree that the bodies of the slain were propped
up by the multitude and could find no space to fall, and so that a soldier in
front of me, with his head split open, driven into to halves by a powerful
sword stroke, stood still like a new stump, hemmed in on every side.”.16
It is through these examples that a yes, a deeper message may come
through, but I do not think his historical authority is altered in any way. If
anything, his historical authority is actually strengthened because it shows
that he is willing to include the good, bad and ugly as previously briefly
touched on.
16
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 18.8.12
Grant 8
Furthermore on the military front, he included such gruesome images
because he wanted readers to see just how horrible barbarians were and
barbarian way of life could be. I completely agree with Robin Seager in her
writing that Ammianus saw barbarianism as the ultimate threat to civilization,
and not just any civilization, but Rome’s civilization.17
These barbarian threats that he feared so much were not just on the
external military front either. Ammianus saw barbarian threats on the
internal front of Rome as well.18 These internal threats are those people who
are in power within the Roman Empire. For example, he gives numerous
accounts of the treason trials that happened, and pin points most of the
unrest to individuals rather than an entire group of people. He writes, “Paul
was the prompter in this theatre of cruelty, continually producing fresh
material from his reserves of lies and mischief, one might almost say that
the lives of all involved depended on his nod.” which shows just how much
one person would go to lie and manipulate to get their way, get innocents
prosecuted, and be, well frankly, barbaric.19 He is concerned about the
barbaric actions of those in power, especially Maximus for example, “He is
said to have kept a cord hanging from a remote window in his official
residence, to the end of which anonymous charges could be attached,
unsupported by evidence but designed to injure many innocent people.” and
does not think that Rome can be the great Eternal City that it is until these
17
Seager, Robin. Ammianus Marcellinus. (Missouri Press) p. 131
Seager, Robin. Ammianus Marcellinus. (Missouri Press) p. 131
19
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 19.12.13
18
Grant 9
people are out of power.20 It is through these political biases that I think
much deeper agendas of Ammianus’ show through that hurt his historical
authority. He writes so freely about these events and with such anger it
struck me that he never really got over the trials and executions that he
wrote about. His possible agenda to completely destroy these men’s name in
future generations is completely accomplished after reading his narrative.
The idea that Ammianus Marcellinus could write so freely about these
barbaric leaders during the fourth century A.D. is quite astonishing in and of
itself. Not only does he write so freely and without shame in the passages
mentioned about, he continues to write about his various grievances with
the imperial courts on issues such as dismissing his commanding officer and
greed of the courtiers.21 Ammianus must have had a lot of various
supporters within his inner circle because otherwise he would have had to
fear severe persecution after his narrative was published because of the
harsh talks of Emperors and those in power, as discussed above. Some of
these protectors that Ammianus could have had ranged from Eutherius to
Hypatius. He commends Eutherius when writing, “He was calm and
unusually consistent, and he cultivated the virtues of loyalty and moderation
to such a degree that he was never charged with the betrayal of a
confidence, unless it was to save another’s life, or with the passion for gain
20
21
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 28.1.36
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 16.8
Grant 10
which the rest of the courtiers exhibited.”.22 Part of one of his agendas could
be that he wants to thank and extend his forever gratitude to these men
who protected him throughout his writings and afterwards by repaying them
by placing them into his narrative and giving them a spot in history as long
as his work survived. These men were the reason that Ammianus could write
what so freely, and although there are surely topics he chose to omit, he got
to include large parts of events because of the protection from these men. I
do not think that this agenda, however, altered his historical authority
because there is not an event that he alters to place one of them up on a
pedestal in an inaccurate way.
Ammianus Marcellinus turned out to be a much more complex person
than I could have ever imagined when first diving into his writing. I do think
after evaluating the entirety of his narrative that he did have hidden
messages throughout, such as his content or discontent of emperors or
barbarians or battles, and also hidden agendas, such as dealing with his
inner demons and show gratitude to his protectors. In the final sentences of
Ammianus’ narrative he writes, “It claims to be the truth, which I have never
ventured to pervert either by silence or a lie.”.
His statement, however, can only be taken at face value since all
historians claim that what they are writing is the truth and unaltered. All in
all, accepting his claim is a lot easier for me now that I found what I believe
22
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire (Penguin 1986). 16.7.5
Grant 11
is to be the most important messages and agendas in his piece, and realize
that although they do show through, they do not alter his historical authority.
Grant 12
Works Cited
Ammianus, Marcellinus, and Walter Hamilton. The Later Roman Empire (A.D.
354-378). Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1986. Print.
This was the main historical narrative that I evaluated and analyzed
Ammianus on.
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume Three,
1185 A.D. to 1453 A.D. [S.l.]: Modern Library, 1932. Print.
I used Gibbon’s piece to compare and contrast his views with other scholars.
His piece is one of the most comprehensive of this time period and also
helped give me endless background knowledge on the period.
Kelly, Gavin. Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
This is the work that I got my idea for my paper on. The book gave me the
ideas of some of the possible agendas, and although I did not agree with
everything, it was a good source to have as a base to compare and contrast
with other scholars.
Livius, Patavinus Titus., and Aubrey De. Sélincourt. The Early History of
Rome: Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundation. London:
Penguin, 1971. Print.
This book was not used so much but as a general citing.
Seager, Robin. Ammianus Marcellinus, Seven Studies in His Language and
Thought. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1986. Print.
This book had completely opposing views of my other sources, so it was
used to have the other side of the argument, so I could see where I fell on
issues that most scholars brought up with Ammianus’ writings.
Thucydides, Rex Warner, and M. I. Finley. History of the Peloponnesian War.
Norwalk, CT: Easton, 2000. Print.
This book was just used as a general citing.