Emperor Constantius II

The inscription of the Roman Obelisc of Constantius II was never properly examined to solve some textual problems and to fix its position among in the wider frame of 4th century Roman epigraphy. There are various interesting connections with other Constantinian texts and with the dedication of the Constantinopolitan obelisk of Theodosius.

A few years ago, G.W. Bowersock questioned Constantine’s paternity of St. Peter’s Basilica and attributed the project to Constans. The paper is a detailed examination of the sources and arguments relative to the problem of dating the basilica. The Liber Pontificalis and the monumental inscriptions are arguments solid enough to justify a Constantinian dating. Less significant and decisive are the arguments based on the brickstamps, the Depositio martyrum, the Theophany of Eusebius and the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates. Accessory elements are the dating of the coin in the urn of Trebellena Flaccilla, the altars of the Phrygianum, the decree of Constans, the coins found in the 17th c., the oldest sarcophagi of the basilica, and the report of Ammianus Marcellinus. In conclusion some of Bowersock’s objections fall because they do not take into account all the elements available and previous scholarship, while others can be overcome without great difficulty. Those that have a stronger basis do not change the essential points on which the Constantinian dating rests.

The collapsing of the Tetrarchy system during the wars of 306-313 brought some new issues and changes to the whole Roman Empire, mainly about the new role of Christianity and the different state ideology and politics Constantine I started to follow. But the Roman Army was not unconnected to these changes and new policies connected to organization of troops and frontier lines altered the old Diocletianic models. Constantine I was a great builder of towers, military roads, fortified bridges and forts all along the Rhine limes whom he cared of so much during his reign. But after his death in 337 his younger son Constans I followed her steps in the West with a vigorous series of military campaigns across the frontier, punishing and controlling the barbarians on the other side both in Britain and Gaul. He created a new military rank too, for endorsing his father´s policy and put to safety more efficiently the borders all along his domains in the West: the comes rei militaris

After serving five years as a Caesar in Gaul, Julian was prepared to fight a civil war against the emperor Constantius II to defend his claim to the title of Augustus. Yet on his way to the encounter, Constantius suddenly died, and the new sole ruler Julian, the less promising candidate in the conflict, emerged as a victor devoid of a victory proper. This paper analyses the way in which Julian handled the curious succession in ideological and practical terms: What ruler image did he establish? How did he set the new government apart from the old one? How did he wish to be seen by his subjects? And how did he intend to shape and frame his empire? Noticeably, in dealing with the transformation, Julian and his new ruler clique discarded typical modes of social reintegration after civil war. Julian opted for a broadly confrontational approach, deliberately taking the risk of alienating large parts of the estab-lished administrative elite. One of his closest companions at the time, Claudius Mamertinus, described Julian’s controversial role as that of a law’s avenger. The aim of this contribution is to determine the precise function of this notion in political discourse and praxis.

The book will be available November 2015
http://www.steiner-verlag.de/titel/60680.html

Presentation made at the Workshop of the Doctoral School Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (Communauté d'universités et établissements Lille Nord de France) "Réception de l'Antiquité : Les fondateurs d'empires et leur postérité" (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 31 March 2017).

Император Юлиан Отступник – одна из наиболее ярких фигур в римской истории IV века. Заслуженное внимание исследователей привлекали его религиозные взгляды, а также литературное творчество. Принадлежность Юлиана к императорскому «дому Константина», в свете его религиозных воззрений, выглядит несколько парадоксально. Однако, несмотря на тот факт, что Юлиан родился при дворе Константина и воспитывался под контролем кузена Констанция, отношения его с родственниками этой линии обращали на себя мало внимания в исследовательской среде. Доклад посвящен сложным отношениям между Констанцием и Юлианом: последний сначала будет первому врагом, затем – соправителем и, наконец, преемником.