Paper Example on Ammianus: Moralizing Leadership for Roman Empire Change

Introduction

Ammianus was critical that the attitude of the ruling class that governed the Roman Empire was unacceptable. His perceptions were centered on the idealism of leadership paradigms. His bias on the moralizing of leadership based on true politics portrays him as a change agitator. He wanted to see the leadership structure transform so that men in leadership positions would be transparent and accountable for their actions. He describes the elevation of Julian in 355CE to establish a differential for Julian. In this regard, Julian is seen to use the rhetoric of "purple death" when he visited Constantius in the royal palace. The phenomenon shows how Ammainaus wanted to elevate the leadership of King Julian to even higher levels. He uses the example to depict the greatest trait that should accompany leaders in whatever they do. Julian is described as a military leader, and his greatness reflected on his victories during the Aeneas wars. He dwells so much in praising Julian since he took into account humankind's essentiality with regards to Egypt, embassies, and artillery. The lack of effective leadership in the Empire prompts him to use Julian's example to show how he endeavored to rubbish the demeanor of physical characteristics and emphasize the importance of optimal conscience.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Moreover, Ammainaus is critical that leaders with the Roman Empire governance framework should have characteristics that need to be emulated. He is critical that some of the people within the ruling class did not have character. He describes Constantius Gallus as a less formidable force that had the physical traits to be a great leader. However, he is sarcastic in his description to show the readers the picture that the people affiliated to the Roman Empire had painted of how noble leaders should look like. Constantius was short and physically-lacking, but Ammianus is critical that this should not be used as a benchmark for his leadership skills.

In addition, Ammianus was not pleased with how the nobles were perceived as superior, while their superiority did not reflect on their behavioral characteristics. He was opined nobles in the Roman Empire should be ready to do anything for their native country. In this regard, the Roman Empire leaders should always act swiftly to protect their territories. Ammianus reiterates how the ruling class is oriented towards bodily pleasures. The affinity towards bodily pleasures makes them insensitive to the needs of the ruled. Enslavement in their wicked desires makes them violate the laws of God and men. The level of service to the state is not satisfactory, according to Ammianus. The aristocrats have fallen short of their duty to serve the people and their nation. For instance, Scipio Africanus aristocracy was modeled on their leadership philosophy on the commonwealth of self-reinforcing deeds. Therefore, they defied the moral fabric on which the Roman Empire was built. At the time of writing, Ammianus articulates that aristocrats were instructed to uphold the interests of the public at heart first before seeking their personal desires. Thus, the Roman aristocrats' idealization was only attractive to pagans that were affiliated to the Neoplatonic antiquarianism of Macrobius Day.

Ammianus's Perception of the Impacts of the Emperor’s Characteristics

Ammianus opined that the Emperor's negative behavioral characteristics put them out of favor with God; therefore, their regimes were characterized by misfortunes. His emphasis that Emperors should be sacrificial lambs at all times was only embodied on only a few leaders such as Julian and Scipio Africanus. In this regard, Ammianus postulates that guardian spirits only safeguard those that are favored with God. The wrath from the gods is why Ammianus captures the turbulent that was prevalent at the beginning of his story. Julian's death witnessed the manifestation of wrath. The demise of a great king like Julian spelled doom for the Empire since there were speculations that the earlier ages' leadership principles will not be restored. Julian was more oriented towards the ancestral gods rather than upholding Christian principles. Julian strived to lead the Empire through inducements, legislations, and personal sacrifice. The standards that he had set could not be met by the incumbent Emperors such as Memmius Vitasius Orfitus.

Additionally, Orfitus did not meet the high cultural values that Ammianus had set for the Emperors and other aristocrats in the Roman Empire. The definition of the social elite, according to Ammianus, is underpinned on the maintenance of optimal cultural and social standards. Ammianus was on the limelight for embezzling public funds, and this led to him being exiled. Ammianus narrates that his problematic behavior and lack of interest in liberal arts led to his abuse of power. Therefore, the EmpireEmpire started experiencing arrogance from a leader that was once seen as an epitome of great leadership.5 He misused his powers and abused the privileges that had been conferred to him. Ammianus criticizes his behavior by articulating that it is not good for persons to abuse their trivial honors. True glory for a nation was supposed to be attained when leaders act out of clear conscience to behave virtuously.

Furthermore, the greedy tendencies witnessed among the emperors are the reason why the Empire could not produce worthy leaders. The candidates that vied for the position in the future were portrayed as mad. For example, Rusticus Julianus had risen to power due to the Empire's inability to find honorable men. Even though he had high esteem, he did not meet the idealistic requirements that governed the Roman people. His lack of ineptness as a leader was not a surprise to Ammianus. He echoed that poor leadership's misfortune will continue to befall the Empire unless they changed the leadership strategies. Ammianus was baffled that most of the leaders were only inclined to prioritize their robe protocols. As a result, the leaders neglected their official duties.

The Armies being portrayed as Political Actors

The dichotomy of leadership in the Empire necessitated that Army should be used as imperial agents. The Army was used to impose forceful rules, and lapdogs used to carry out injustices on resistive persons. Valentinian used the Army to persecute high profile members within society. The people were persecuted for malicious accusations of witchcraft and adultery. He accused the victims of being resentful as well as lacking mannerisms and education.6 The armies were used to implement the aggressive tactics of the emperors, who were mostly portrayed as self-centered. The aggression was justified with the claims that the victimized persons lacked respect and dignity.

Moreover, Ammianus reiterates that leaders such as Valentinian were aggressive since they had military backgrounds themselves. In this regard, they were often seen to promote bureaucratic agents in their leadership paradigms. For example, Ammianus recounts how Valentinian's reign was characterized by the promotion of consulships to general positions. The practice was aimed to establish authoritative leadership that cannot be overturned. Unfair promotions in the military were rampant except for Vulcarius Rufinus and Petronius Probus. Ammianus explains that the armies had a popular taste to interfere in the welfare of the state.

Besides, the armies wanted to achieve the stature of the senatorial class; therefore, they endeavored to impress their bosses. In doing so, they dined with the aristocrats who led luxury levels. The aristocrats ordered the armies to go wealth-amassment escapades to increases their monetary resources. Aristocracy, according to the ruling class was centered in doubling of wealth annually with regards to the yields from their fields. They prided themselves in the plentiful harvests and the expansiveness of their lands. Ammianus reiterates that the wealth was accumulated using military force. The relationship between the aristocrats and the armies was based on lies, and hallmarked by the need to spend money foolishly. The reparations from selfish amassments were shared with the armies as a gesture of good faith. The armies became uncaring to their responsibilities resulting in a scenario where they lost their worthiness as social eminences. The armies started to pursue trivial at the expense of their military enthusiasm. In doing so, the armies became puppets that could be used to carry out aristocratic acts of impunity.

Bibliography

Ammianus Marcellinus, Charles Upson Clark, John Carew Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus Marcellinus., 354-378. Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press, 1935.