Urban Edge News

The reign of Emperor Julian (361–363 CE) marked a flashpoint in the broader cultural and religious conflict between the traditional Greco-Roman religious system and the rapidly expanding Christian church. Two significant primary sources offer differing evaluations of Julian’s rule: The Later Roman Empire by Ammianus Marcellinus and Homily on Saint Babylas, against Julian and the Pagans by John Chrysostom. Both authors were products of their respective ideological worlds—Ammianus, a pagan-leaning Roman historian, and Chrysostom, an early Church Father and Christian preacher. However, while both sources reflect deep-seated biases, Ammianus Marcellinus ultimately presents a more measured and less overtly biased account. This paper argues that Ammianus is less biased because his work shows a more balanced engagement with Julian’s character and policies, includes moments of critique, and is primarily historical rather than polemical in intent. In contrast, Chrysostom’s sermon is explicitly moralistic and theological, shaped by the agenda of Christian martyrdom and apologetics.

Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman officer and historian writing in the late 4th century, was a contemporary of Julian and even served under him. His work The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378), completed around 390 CE, aims to be a continuation of Tacitus' historical tradition and largely seeks to chronicle political and military events with detailed observations. Ammianus admired Julian personally and ideologically, praising his virtues and reforms. However, what distinguishes Ammianus’s work is that despite his admiration, he occasionally critiques Julian’s failings, such as his excessive attachment to philosophical ideals and impulsive administrative decisions. For instance, Ammianus notes that Julian “was somewhat too fond of disputation, and would sacrifice practical needs for philosophical debate.”¹ This demonstrates a willingness to critique rather than simply glorify the emperor, suggesting a more nuanced perspective than that of a mere apologist.

By contrast, John Chrysostom’s Homily on Saint Babylas, delivered in the late 4th century and preserved in the Christian rhetorical tradition, is deeply polemical. Chrysostom was not attempting to produce an objective historical account. His sermon was intended to inspire and affirm the faith of Christian listeners by portraying Julian as a demonic adversary of God and the Church. From the outset, Julian is painted not merely as a misguided ruler but as an agent of evil. Chrysostom writes that Julian "raged like a wild beast against the Church"²—a metaphor that removes any possibility of complexity or moral ambiguity. The emperor is framed not as a man of conviction or complexity but as a symbolic enemy of righteousness. This theological lens necessarily distorts the historical record, casting Julian not in shades of gray but in pure opposition to the divine.

Another reason Ammianus appears less biased is that he portrays Julian within the broader context of Roman political and military traditions. His judgments, though sometimes shaped by his own beliefs in Roman values and pagan philosophy, are tethered to concrete events and the standards of Roman leadership. Ammianus respects Julian’s military prowess and intellectual curiosity but does not hide his occasional ineffectiveness or lack of diplomacy. When describing Julian’s Persian campaign, Ammianus recounts not only Julian’s bravery but also his failure to adequately provision his army, which contributed to his demise.³ While this account includes admiration, it also implicates Julian in his own downfall, emphasizing both his virtues and his strategic miscalculations.

In contrast, Chrysostom’s sermon is detached from this political-military framework and instead operates entirely within a spiritual battlefield. Saint Babylas, a Christian martyr, is set against Julian in stark terms, and the homily seeks to depict the superiority of Christian suffering over pagan power. Chrysostom uses the story of Babylas to symbolize the endurance of Christian virtue against imperial tyranny. Julian, by extension, becomes less a historical person and more a stand-in for pagan corruption and demonic forces. He is not evaluated for his actual decisions or policies, but rather for his opposition to Christian doctrine. For example, Chrysostom does not mention Julian’s efforts to reform imperial taxation or his promotion of meritocratic appointments; such details would complicate the narrative of absolute evil. This exclusion reveals a deeper bias: Chrysostom’s aim was never historical balance, but theological affirmation.

Furthermore, Ammianus was writing for a Roman elite audience familiar with the empire's administrative and military structures. His style, while occasionally florid, was grounded in the Roman historiographical tradition. Ammianus understood that his audience expected both admiration and critique in a proper account of an emperor’s reign. This expectation likely encouraged him to temper his praise and occasionally acknowledge Julian’s flaws. By contrast, Chrysostom’s audience consisted largely of Christian believers for whom Julian was remembered not as a reformer but as “Julian the Apostate.” His homily serves to reinforce group identity and moral certainty. Within that framework, any nuance in Julian’s character would be a liability.

It is also important to consider the timing and intended permanence of the two works. Ammianus wrote his history shortly after Julian’s death, aiming to produce a lasting historical record. Chrysostom’s sermon, although preserved in written form, was originally a spoken performance, intended for immediate impact rather than long-term preservation of complex facts. As a result, Chrysostom uses rhetorical techniques such as repetition, metaphor, and exaggeration to move his audience emotionally, not to inform them impartially. For instance, he emphasizes how Babylas’ bones “drove away the devil,” implicitly suggesting that Julian was a literal embodiment of evil.⁴ This symbolic language is powerful but historically unbalanced.

The broader historical context of the late 4th century also shaped these portrayals. By the time both works were written, Christianity had become the dominant religion in the empire, with Theodosius I having made it the official state faith in 380 CE. Chrysostom’s sermon reflects the triumphalism of this new Christian order, depicting Julian as a final, failed attempt to restore a crumbling pagan system. Ammianus, however, was writing in a context where pagan intellectual life still persisted, albeit under threat. His defense of Julian’s virtues can be seen as a defense of traditional Roman values and classical learning in an increasingly Christianized world. Yet even within that context, Ammianus does not reject Christian moral standards outright, and he does not deny that Julian’s aggressive anti-Christian policies alienated many of his subjects.

In conclusion, while both Ammianus Marcellinus and John Chrysostom provide rich, ideologically charged portrayals of Emperor Julian, Ammianus offers the less biased account. His work, although shaped by personal admiration and philosophical affinity, demonstrates a willingness to critique Julian’s missteps and situates him within a recognizable Roman political framework. Chrysostom, by contrast, offers a sermon whose primary goal is theological argumentation, not historical complexity. His account omits Julian’s positive qualities, exaggerates his faults, and reframes him as an archetypal enemy of the faith. Therefore, in terms of historical reliability and balanced judgment, Ammianus provides the more trustworthy narrative.

Bibliography

Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378). Translated by Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin, 1986.

Chrysostom, John. “Homily on Saint Babylas, Against Julian and the Pagans.” Translated by Marna M. Morgan. In The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic, edited by Samuel N.C. Lieu, 65–87. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1986.