Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Jazz
Baron
Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Justinian I- another character assassination Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 04:13 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
.... It isnt that massive an extension from
what Justinian achieved so that may well have been possible under
somebody like Heraclius. If things were different the history of the
empire in this period would be unrecognisable, Byzantium to strong for
the Arabs, no iconoclasm, no dark age itd be totall different to what
we know the be Byzantium. |
I wonder how the history of the Papacy would have been different (and
by extention, the religious history of Catholic Europe) had Italy
remained unfragmented (ie, no Lombard invasion, or beating off the
Lombards afterwards) and the Pope didn't have to assume all the secular
power he did around Rome.
|
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 16:53 |
The paranoia between the two empires could have easily been erased had
friendly relations been established. I quite sure Yazdegerd and
Heraclius were kicking themselves for not thinking about this when the
Arabs opening large cans of "whup-ass" on them.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 10:25 |
It's almost absurd when reading about Byzantium when you discover yet another peace treaty was signed with Persia and the question is "hmm I wonder how theyll mess this one up?", it was a classic fight to the death that culminated with Heraclius ending the Persian threat to Byzantium, the Arabs then had an easy time crushing Persia afterwards.
Its fascinating to think how far the reconquests could have gone, could Heraclius have built on Justinians work? would Heraclius have even got to the throne had things been different? assuming he did could the western empire have been revived pre Charlemange?
I think personally trying a total reconquest was impossible but Byzantium may have been able to wrap around the Med completely encircling it like the old empire. All of North Africa, Spain, Italy (secure), southern France.
It isnt that massive an extension from what Justinian achieved so that may well have been possible under somebody like Heraclius. If things were different the history of the empire in this period would be unrecognisable, Byzantium to strong for the Arabs, no iconoclasm, no dark age itd be totall different to what we know the be Byzantium.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 03:43 |
Hehe thanks for the touch up on my language, I did legal in high school so I should not have tripped up there.
An alliance or genuine peace with Persia, IMO, was simply never a
practical possibility. Only two times in history can I recall a peace
that lasted for the better part of a generation between Byzantium and
Persia. The first was at the turn of the 4th century when Galerius
managed a decisive defeat of King Narses (yes, fascinating the
Byzantines would one day have a Narses fighting for them) which forced
the Persians into a long peace. Once the date for the expiry of peace
arrived, the war resumed and it was an intransigent war.
The second time was under Maurice, an Emperor who I developing a big
curiosity about. He intervened in the Persian civil war to instate the
young Khosrau who stayed faithful to the peace agreement until Maurice
was overthrown. Apart from that constant fighting was the order of the
day and Byzantium and Persia were fated to continue it. A lasting peace
is a nice idea but it goes against everything we know about
international relations and the political particulars between Byzantium
and Persia. Personally I don't think a lasting peace was achievable,
each side would always attack the other when they sensed weakness for
fear of being the victims themselves at some point down the track.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 02:04 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
but it hardly justifies him slandering Byzantium as he did.
|
I disagree wholeheartedly. Slander is spoken. Libel is what you are looking for.
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
is certainly a task. The abridged version is about 1470 pages. I can
not imagine reading the whole text of his bias and arrogance.
Actually, I believe that diplomacy with Persia was the answer. Perhaps
I live in a fantasy world, but perhaps an alliance with Persia might
have ensured the prosperity of both. Persia's aggressive western policy
and the Romans' view of the Persians as arch-enemies would have
severely hindered this. Just think though, if Justinian could have
secured a lasting alliance with Persia, Heraclius might have been
reconquering Gaul and Britain rather than fighting a disastrous war
with Persia. The so called "Dark Ages" would only have lasted for a
century rather than the centuries it actually did. The Sassanids might
have crushed the Arabs and survived for centuries more. Zoroastrianism
might have become the religion of the Middle East rather than Islam.
The combined strength of both empires might have defeated the hordes of
Ghengis Khan. We might have been speaking Greek or Persian rather than
English in the present day. A fascinating "What if?", I believe.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 21:20 |
Decline and Fall is on my
to-do list. There are only so many hours in the day and it's a huge
work to get through. I have had the chance to read several chapters of
it. Some of what he has written can be forgiven for him living in the
late 18th century with limited to access to sources and archaeological
evidence, but it hardly justifies him slandering Byzantium as he did.
Personally the thing I think would have worked better for Justinian
would have been to absolutely cripple Persia before going on his
reconquest. He could easily have afforded a few years of war to utterly
decimate the Persians under his brilliant young general before going
West. I think Justinian sent him off on the mission to retake the West
far too soon after Dara. Perhaps after devestating the Persians for a
good 5 years and leaving them militarily and economically cripplied
would have ensured he could free up many more men for the Western
campaign and at the same time not bankrupt the state with such a huge
tribute being paid to the Perians. The Kingdoms in the West were no
immediate threat and could be dealt with at any time of his choosing,
but Persia was an intransigent enemy which had to be properly weakened
before fighting wars in the other side of the Byzantine world.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 13:30 |
I own the abridged version of Gibbons work, I refuse to read it though, after reading abit, his boastful arrogant attitude annoyed me so much that I couldnt care less what he thinks.
Gibbons work may be a literary masterpiece but his opinion is biased and utterly undeservant of the praise it gets.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 13:08 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Its a shame that only people who study
Byzantine history will know about him as he has never passed into
general knowledge like Caeser and Constantine. |
We have Edward Gibbon to thank for that. By the way, I am reading his Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Has anyone else read this? I find it to be quite an arrogant and biased
work. He mentions things like the Roman Empire being unequaled in
culture, with no regard for the flourishing Chinese culture. Quite
Eurocentric of him, I believe. Of course, there is also the
mistreatment of the Byzantine Empire, which he thoroughly villainizes.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 11:12 |
What I meant by small army was the army Belisarius was given to make the reconquests I believe Norwich says no more than 15,000 to north africa and 30,000 in Italy which may be enough to destroy (if used wisely) the armies or the enemies there but not enough to hold it sufficiently when the conquest is done. Narses however was given at least 35,000 men.
Also Norwich says the army which had once been 645,000 was allowed to shrink to a mere 150,000, 150,000 men is not enough if your undertaking the kind of reconquests Justinian achieved and then trying to hold frontiers which were more hard pressed than ever and a less than *eternal* peace with Persia.
Even so I believe with no doubt, that Justinian could have helped Belisarius out far more than he did, maybe then Italy could have been secured and barbarians not having to be bought off.
I agree with Norwich when he says Justinian cant be considered the greatest in history because he left the state near bankrupt, but he did make a mark on the empire which was infinitely more valuable and despite his obvious flaws he was the last true Roman emperor and still deserves to be alongside the likes of Alexander and Constantine as "The great".
Its a shame that only people who study Byzantine history will know about him as he has never passed into general knowledge like Caeser and Constantine.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 02:45 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
I dont doubt she was a strong woman etc,
but her attitude towards Belisarius was totally undeserved, he was the
empires greatest and most loyal general he remained loyal to Justinian
again and again when many others would have rebelled after the
treatment he got.
Belisarius achieved military feats that must have seemed
impossible to begin with how could an empire so reduced with such a
small army hope to reconquer so much? yet he did it. North africa,
Sicily, Corsia, Sardinia, Italy all of these reconquests were made
possible by Belisarius, yet Theodora was against him? he contributed
far more to Byzantium than she ever did.
|
Yes! I say we kill her and throw her mutilated body to the wolverines for mastication and more mutilation!
Seriously now, what really brings the dagger home with the
Theodora-Belisarius situation was that the empire was not reduced to a
small army and was probably stronger than the Western and Eastern Roman
Empires, of a century before, combined. The standing army under
Justinian was in the avenue of 625,000 men, if we are to believe Jules
Norwich. The empire was also doing very well in matters of wealth.
However, it was Theodora who, through Justinian or her own actions,
made sure that Belisarius never benefitted from the empire's prosperity.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 19:57 |
Heraclius:
Hear, hear!!!!
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 19:50 |
I dont doubt she was a strong woman etc, but her attitude towards Belisarius was totally undeserved, he was the empires greatest and most loyal general he remained loyal to Justinian again and again when many others would have rebelled after the treatment he got.
Belisarius achieved military feats that must have seemed impossible to begin with how could an empire so reduced with such a small army hope to reconquer so much? yet he did it. North africa, Sicily, Corsia, Sardinia, Italy all of these reconquests were made possible by Belisarius, yet Theodora was against him? he contributed far more to Byzantium than she ever did.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 22:33 |
There is no doubt that Theodora was a strong woman and an effective
influence on Justinian. My problem with her is how her actions secured
the doom of Byzantine power in the east and west. It was her fault that
the Italian campaign became what it was and cost them the control of
Rome and the papacy.
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 18:38 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Theodoras scheming against Belisarius is enough for me to turn against her, especially since Belisarius seemed to be nothing more than a good and loyal man who tried to do his best for the empire and nothing more. The fact Theodora abused her power in such a way leads me to think she did not deserve such power. |
The intrigues on Justinians court against Belisarius are retold in Robert Graves ("I, Claudius") novel "Count Belisarius", a fictional and very sympathetic account of the great man's life and achievement.
A few chapters are devoted to the story of Theodora and Antonina, Belisarius' wife, their common background and rise to notoriety, and their subsequent marriages to the two most powerful men in the Empire.
Graves admits in his foreword that most of the aspects of his retelling of Theodora's life were ..."adopted with very little editing from the "Secret History". He left however most of the more interesting details out.
If you haven't read the book yet, it's highly recommended.
Prokopios' account of Theodora, and the mosaic in Ravenna, has guaranteed that she has become one of more publicly known figures of Byzantine history, there have been a number of novels written about her ( I recently saw one in a second hand book shop, but didn't buy it, cause it was in Dutch and too expensive) and apparently a couple of films were made about her in the 20s and 30s.(I lost the link)
Apart from that, I tend to agree with Constantine XI. When you sift through all of Prokopios' rubble, underneath there must have been a rather remarkable woman, with a formidable and forceful character who had an influential part in making Justinian's reign one of the more successful in Byzantine history.
Here she is anyway, in all her glory:
Portrait mosaic of Theodora in the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 17:53 |
Heraclius:
Belisarius deserved better, but, just like in the corporate board room, "Egos do not flock."
History is replete with similar examples of noble servants and heros ill used.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 17:00 |
It is a shame that a great and always loyal geenral like Belisarius did not achieve anything that lasted, left alone to do what he did best Italy could have been secured and true Roman rule re-established, instead the Italian campaign became such a mess Italy was ravaged, depopulated and riddled with war and didnt recover for centuries.
Theodoras scheming against Belisarius is enough for me to turn against her, especially since Belisarius seemed to be nothing more than a good and loyal man who tried to do his best for the empire and nothing more. The fact Theodora abused her power in such a way leads me to think she did not deserve such power.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
mord
Pretorian
Joined: 10-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 08:30 |
I read Procopius when I was in graduate school and discussing that problem of sources. The idea that "the winners write the history" is pretty much shattered by Procopius. You also get, right in your face, a lesson in an author's bias. Keep this in mind when reading other authors.
Mord.
|
errr...left turn at vinland?
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 07:48 |
Hehe I'm not all that old, Belisarius. Still a teenager for a tiny bit longer. How old did you reckon I was? As for doing a history major I wouldn't brush it off. I am doing Commerce/Arts double degree and it is working out brilliantly. Employers these days LOVE graduates who show they can adapt themselves to diverse subjects and tasks, the double degree is extremely valuable in the workplace. For me the Commerce side will ensure a prosperous future, while the Arts side complements that by allowing me to pick up a widely spoken language as well as doing history. Also, by doing history as ONE of my majors I am doing a topic I am passionate about and because of that get very good marks, which in turn boost my overall academic scores for my course. Having been thrust into the workforce quite young I can also assure you that a degree is only one part of that succesful career, and not a necessary one. It is the individuals in the workplace with originality, imagination, discipline, a conscientious attitude, ambition and leadership qualities who rise to the top in the working world. A degree might give an important boost, but doesn't assure you of everything.
Hmmmm well that's quite alot of small talk. With regard to Theodora I don't hate her. I admire anyone who can rise to the top from the position she was born into, she was most definitely a character of determination and intelligence. In two aspects she failed her Empire, in persecuting Belisarius and in sending Joseph the Ragged out to the East. The former ensured military exhaustion of the Empire by prolonging the war in Italy, the latter ensured widespread dissent in the East which would lead to these provinces becoming removed from Byzantine authority in later decades.
It is amazing the love they must have had for eachother. He, the most powerful man in the West who could have any woman he desired. She, a low born commoner with shatteringly good looks and as much power as her Imperial consort. And yet they were so close there is not even a hint or any suspicion at all, not even from venomous Procopius, that they were anything but faithful to one another until the day each of them died.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2005 at 02:12 |
You are older than I thought you were, Constantine. I wish I was going
into a university and be a history major, but the folks just tell me
that history does not bring food to the table, or a Mercedes in your
garage, or a supermodel in your bed...
Well enough with the small talk. Justinian certainly had many faults,
but then again, what human being does not? He was certainly an egoist,
megalomaniacal, and by all means "whipped" by his wife. However, it
would seem that rather than making him a villainous character, these
things actually make him more interesting.
If not for his ego, would he have been as confident in his
ventures or as commanding? If not for his megalomania, his obsession
with grandeur, would he have reconquered all of that lost territory?
Would we still be blessed by the Hagia Sophia? If not for his
unflinching trust in wife, would he have been able to put down the Nike
riots?
The wife did get him into trouble though, most notably with the great
Flavius Belisarius. She stirred in Justinian distrust against arguably
his most loyal servant. Who knows, Belisarius might have crushed the
Lombards and secured all of Italy for centuries, rather than decades,
and any Byzantine scholar knows how that would have helped preserve the
empire. However, as I have said, he is only human and is entitled to
make mistakes and is not the villain Procopius makes him out to be.
Edited by Belisarius
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2005 at 19:49 |
Ive read the scornful and infinitely vicious accounts of Theodora and your both correct not the kind of thing you want youngsters to see. Despite that I do dislike Theodora for her constant scheming against Belisarius and her manipulation of Justinian, to be perfectly honest I was quite happy when she finally passed away and I was able to read about Justinians life without her pesistant interference.
I bet if I went outside tomorrow and asked random people "have you ever heard of Byzantium?" Id get a few weird looks and far more "No" answers, youd get the odd one who'd heard of Constantinople but wouldnt know anything but the name. As far as western civilisation seems to be concerned the less Byzantium is mentioned the better, the emphasis on Byzantine studies have increased dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years but its still not even close to being common knowledge whereas most average people have basic knowledge on the Roman empire.
I say though its peoples loss for ignoring Byzantium as its far more interesting and deep than any other civilisation ive studied the Roman empire pales in comparison IMO.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|