Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist

by Peter Crawford

A compelling biography of Constantine I’s “Excellent analyses of a number of battles and sieges . . . a good read for anyone interested in the late Empire.” —The NYMAS Review   The reign of Constantius II has been overshadowed by that of his titanic father, Constantine the Great, and his cousin and successor, the pagan Julian. But as Peter Crawford shows, Constantius deserves to be remembered as a very capable ruler in dangerous, tumultuous times.   When Constantine I died in 337, twenty-year-old Constantius and his two brothers, Constans and Constantine II, all received the title of Augustus to reign as equal co-emperors. In 340, however, Constantine II was killed in a fraternal civil war with Constans. The two remaining brothers shared the Empire for the next ten years, with Constantius ruling Egypt and the Asian provinces, constantly threatened by the Sassanid Persian Empire. Constans in turn was killed by the usurper Magnentius in 350. Constantius refused to accept this fait accompli, made war on Magnentius, and defeated him at the battles of Mursa Major and Mons Seleucus, leading Magnentius to commit suicide. Constantius was now sole ruler of the Empire—but it was an empire beset by external enemies.   This historical biography recounts Constantius’ life and his successful campaigns against the Germanic Alamanni along the Rhine and the Quadi and Sarmatians across the Danube, as well as his efforts against the Persians in the East, which had more mixed results—and reveals how he defended the Empire until his dying day.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Ancient History, Roman History

383 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 31, 2020

Reviews

[Anthony Ragan · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and fair biography of a not-often remembered (and poorly so when remembered) Roman Emperor from the fourth century A.D. Crawford tells an interesting story of Constantius' life, his place in the Constantinian dynasty, and draws a three-dimensional picture of the emperor's successes and failures, both as a ruler, as a general, and as a person. The book suffers from a reliance on few sources (principally the contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who hated Constantius), but then sources from the fourth century are relatively limited. the work could also have used another pass by an editor, for it occasionally suffers from clumsy sentence structure and odd use of tenses. The Kindle copy also has more typos than it should.

Overall recommended to students of Roman history, especially those interested in the later Empire, as a good work accessible to the non-specialist.

[Joy · Rating 3 out of 5]

While researching military recruitment practices in the Roman Empire, Crawford came to the conclusion that Constantius, successor of Constantine the Great, deserved a book of his own. Indeed, he seems to have been at war for most of his 24-year reign, defending an empire that was much over-expanded. Crawford believes Constantius II got an undeservedly bad reputation because so many of the writings of his enemies survived. Crawford concedes the murders of his rival cousins, his attempt to assume the direction of the various branches of the Christian church, and the deadly intrigues of the corrupt officials of his Court.

Crawford's chosen area to rehabilitate Constantius's memory is the military. Constantius was usually faced with several wars at once. Not only was this more than the empire could support, but many of the successful generals at a distance from the Court were driven to rebel by backstabbers at Court. Constantius defeated all these rebellions except the last. On the eastern front, Persia was led by the very able and ambitious Shapur II, and Constantius was able to keep even him contained.

Crawford's evaluation of historical sources shows that Constantius had enemies who were very vocal. Athanasius of Alexandria, whilom bishop, wrote a great deal, all violently opposed to Constantius. As Crawford says: “It was with his fellow Christians that Constantius found that trying to be somewhat fair to everyone was not going to be tolerated.” History considers that Constantius was an Arian, but Crawford shows that Constantius wasn’t really an Arian, that was just the term that Athanasius used to describe all his enemies of whatever form of Christian thought. Constantius wasn’t opposing a branch of religion so much as trying to bring under control people of whatever religion who created turbulence in the Empire. Constantius was most opposed to Athanasius because Athanasius was the churchman who fostered the most crime and violence.

Another vocal enemy - an earned one - is Ammianus Marcellinus, a soldier writing the history of events of his own time. Ammianus followed Ursicinus, a loyal and effective general who was eventually cashiered by Constantius; and then he followed Constantius's cousin Julian, who once he was named Caesar was under constant fire at least from the Court and maybe from Constantius himself. Crawford questions Ammianus at every opportunity, but eventually concludes in his Epilogue (which is more balanced than the rest of the book) that Ammianus was probably reporting pretty fairly.

This interesting book fills a gap in 4th century history and as such deserves to be read in spite of its Doubting Thomas approach.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not an easy book to read but, if you enjoy Roman history, it is worth the effort. The author usually provides a thorough examination of the available sources for important event including multiple theories about how, when, and why they happened and provides a clear argument for what he thinks is the correct explanation. For me, this level of detail often illuminated other aspects of the era that were not necessarily the focus of this book. There were a few times I didn't agree with his conclusions but his arguments were always sound.

I did have some problems with the book.

There were a few places where the author related an event without providing any sources or evidence for how it was known to have happened. These events may have stood out because of the amount of discussion elsewhere or all the sources agreed on it, so the author felt that they didn't need discussion. However, the description of one of these undiscussed events didn't make sense to me while I would have like more information on some of the others.

In the introduction, the author describes the problems with the lack of source material and the accuracy of some the individual sources. In most of the book, he reminded the reader of the these problems when the affected what was being described. Personally, I felt he failed to do this with many Christian writers and accepted the events as related when the sources were biased (as he noted in the introduction).

[Henrique Henriques · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book very much since it provides the usually missing link between the events leading from the time of Constantine the Great, when the Empire was resurgent and strong, to the embattled Empire that finally suffered the disaster of Adrianople in 378 (although the events in the book end with Julian's death in 363).
Lesser known events like the bloody Battle of Mursa between Roman armies might explain the shortage of soldiers later on and the ever expanding recourse to Barbarians. Also little known is the successful defensive strategy on the Persian front and the fact that Rome had a Mesopotamian province that acted as an effective bullwark against the Sassanids. Famous cities such as Carrae -
where Crassus died at the hands of the Partians 1st century BC - or Nisibis were in that province (a conquest from the Tetrarchy, I guess). Interesting analysis that such defensive strategy was seen as unRoman and scorned upon, despite its strategic success (and some tactical defeats).
All in all, a very nice and quite convincing reappraisal of a not very well-known Emperor. Always hard to be the son of a great man!

[William Whalen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best biographies on Roman Emperors that I have read. It was exciting without sacrificing scholarly integrity. The only fault that I found was the battlefield diagrams looked like something I would have drawn. Trust me that this is not a compliment. This is a very minor issue in an otherwise excellent work.

[Mick Maye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Constantius

A rambling narrative spanning multiple decades. The sources are limited and the main source Ammianus has a distinct bias against him, however the book gives a solid story of his life.

[Nikolai-Atanassov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of a fascinating period of Roman history

Extremely interesting - the in-depth story of one of the most critical periods of late antiquity. Learnt a lot about figures which should be better known for their role in history.