Julian’s Persian War and his death in enemy territory have received much attention among both ancient and modern authors.276 The excellent accounts by the eyewitness Ammianus Marcellinus277 and by the fifth-century pagan author Zosimus,278 who wrote in Greek, give us a detailed knowledge of the events.
Ammianus Marcellinus xxiv. j.i and3—6
(i) The emperor therefore discussed a siege of Ktesiphon with his chief advisors and then followed the opinion of some well-informed men that this would be bold and inappropriate because not only was the city impregnable by its location but also because the king was expected to arrive any minute together with an enormous force...
(3) But as usual he was greedy for more and did not respect the words of those who warned him; he accused the generals of advising him to let go of the Persian kingdom, which was already almost won, because of laziness and a desire for leisure. With the river on his left and untrustworthy guides leading the way he decided to march quickly into the interior. (4) And as if the fire had been lit with the fatal torch of Bellona279 herself, he gave the instruction to burn all ships except for twelve smaller ones, which he decided would be useful for building bridges and therefore decided to transport on wagons. He thought that this decision had the advantage of not leaving a fleet behind for the enemy’s use and in any case the advantage that (as it had been the case from the beginning of the campaign) almost 20,ooo men would no longer be busy transporting and guiding those ships.280 (5) When then everybody muttered, fearing for his life, and open truth revealed that the army, should it be forced to retreat because the climate was so dry and the mountains so high, would not be able to return to the waters, and when the defectors openly confessed under torture that they had told lies, the order was given to exert all energies to extinguish the flames. As the uncontrollable fire had already spread and had destroyed the majority of the ships, only the twelve ships, which had been set aside to be kept, could be saved unharmed. (6) In this way the fleet had been lost although there had been no need for this, but Julian, who trusted in his ‘unified’ army, because none ofthe soldiers were distracted by other duties, advanced with greater numbers into the interior, where the rich countryside furnished supplies in abundance.
Zosimus 111.28.3—29.1
(3) They [the Romans] passed a few villages and then arrived at Toummara, where they were all overcome by regret regarding the burnt ships. For the pack-animals, who had suffered hardship on the long journey through enemy territory, did not suffice for the provision of necessary supplies and the Persians had collected as much grain as they could and had hidden this away in the most fortified places so that they could prevent the Roman army from using it. Although they were in this situation, the Romans, when Persian units appeared and they fought a battle, defeated them easily and many Persians died. (4) In the late morning of the following day, however, the Persians unexpectedly attacked the rear guard of the Roman army with their combined forces. Although the soldiers were at first confused and in disorder because the attack had come so suddenly, they took heart and counter-attacked when the emperor, as he used to do, went through their ranks and encouraged them.
(29.1) When it came to a general hand-to-hand combat, he joined the commanders and captains and mixed with the crowd but was then struck by a sword in the decisive moment of the battle and taken to his tent on a shield. He lived until almost midnight and then died, close to having brought on the downfall of Persian rule.
On 5 March 363 Julian left Syrian Antioch with a large force in order to invade Persia. Whereas parts of his army were instructed to attack the Sasanians from the North via Nisibis, Julian crossed the Euphrates at Nikephorion and marched downstream along the left bank of the river. He was headed for the Sasanian capital Ktesiphon. Although the Romans made good progress on their march south, which lasted over three months, they obviously were afraid to attack Ktesiphon.281 Against the advice of his generals, Julian decided to cross the river Tigris in order to gain control over important roads in the interior and thereby to improve his strategic position. Ammianus, who in general depicts Julian in a very positive light, criticises the emperor sharply.282 In particular Julian’s decision to destroy his own fleet that was in operation on the Tigris was completely inappropriate from a strategic point of view because, as the author describes, this cut the Romans off from their own fresh supplies. Zosimus also points to the disastrous consequences of Julian’s decision and emphasises the problems of provisions, which were exacerbated by the Persian practice of collecting and hiding produce. In this situation the two armies clashed at Samarra;283 the Romans defeated the Persians but Julian was wounded and died on 26 June 363. With regard to the emperor’s death, other sources diverge from these accounts.86 Whereas the pagan author and admirer of Julian, Zosimus, describes a courageous emperor who was struck down in battle by the enemy, other sources claim that he was the victim of an intrigue.
A Sasanian relief at Taq-i Bustan shows the dead emperor and may indicate that he was killed in battle by his enemy (fig. 12).87 In contrast to the early Sasanian rulers, who had their rock reliefs carved in the vicinity of Persepolis, from Ardaser II (379—83) onwards the kings chose the massive rock at Taq-i Bustan (map 5), which rises into a steep summit and is located close to Kermanshah along the road to the Sasanian capital Ktesiphon, as the place where they could praise their own deeds.
Fig. i2 Rock relief of Ardasir II at Taq-i Bustan (Ghirshman, R. (1962) Iran. Parthians and Sassanians: fig. 233)
(Photo: Ph. Claude Deffarge-Rapho)
The relief represents the investiture of Ardasir II, who is depicted between the highest Zoroastrian deity Ahura Mazda and the god Mithras (characteristically crowned by the rays of the sun).284 The power of the image is enhanced by the figure lying at the feet of Ahura Mazda and the king, undoubtedly representing a slain enemy. Although the armour is not recognisable, it seems safe to identify the figure as a Roman ruler; as the relief is close in time to the events of the year 363, it is tempting to assume that it is the emperor Julian.285 This, however, remains speculative.286
Soon after the events of June 363 legends formed around the death of the controversial emperor.287 A plethora of ancient and medieval sources, both pagan and Christian, describe and judge Julian in many different ways.288
Julian’s death ended the Persian War, which had started in the year 338. The Roman army proclaimed a man from their own ranks the new emperor, Jovian, who quickly agreed to a peace with Sapur II (18). As Jovian was in a fairly hopeless situation, he had no choice but to accept considerable territorial losses, which turned this peace treaty into a humiliating experience for Rome. In any case, the new emperor was primarily interested in leading his army safely back onto Roman territory.289 290 291 292 The ‘Armenian problem’ shattered any hope which the Romans may have entertained of a long peace on the Eastern frontier; however, in the fifth century this conflict was eventually ‘resolved’ between the two powers.
World History
