I remember sitting down in the lecture hall for the very first time to listen to the my first university lecture on medieval history. The lecturer, stereotypically a lecturer in every sense with his Elizabethan accent and little bow tie, said hello and then began to construct the world at the fall of Rome. Before he could move on to the world circa 1000 AD he had to introduce a word which virtually every person in the lecture hall had never heard of before - Byzantium. He put up a couple of slides of Justinian and Theodora's mosaics at Ravenna, made some derogatory references to Caesaro-Papist policies and opulent royal ceremony. Then he finished our 10 minute education in Byzantium by quoting Procopius when he refers to Theodora, dragging her mercilessly through the mud before finishing the quote with a reference to her desire for larger nipple openings for...... well I can't say (though Komnenos will know what I'm talking about).

In any case, Byzantium was never again mentioned during the course except very fleetingly. It is astounding that such an important part of Western Civilization, lasting over a millennium, can be omitted with such tenacity. But this is a product of how historiography has chosen to view Byzantine studies.

I think alot of what the secret histories claims should be taken with a grain of salt. We notice that it is divided into 30 something sections, each making a different allegation. I have approached it by examining each of these allegations individually and weighing up the evidence and probabilities. For instance, I utterly reject the notion that Justinian was a demon brought back to Earth, that particular point is based on flimsy evidence and can only be considered ridiculous. But then there are claims that Justinian was fiscally irresponsible due to his foreign policy and overspending at home and this appears very much the case. We see him resorting to every cheapskate scheme to save money even after succeeding to the Byzantine Emperor who managed to save more money than anyone else, Anastasius I.

The fact is that Procopius is out to do some damage and provides some pretty poor evidence and sources of information, much of it no doubt coming from marketplace and forum gossip. Each allegation must be examined separately and judged separately. I would dismiss much of what he says, particularly about the personal lives of the characters concerned, though he makes some valid points about bad imperial administration and policy.

I suspect Procopius was simply a brilliant writer who had been done some sort of injury by Justinian and even more so by Theodora and decided to get his own back with a heap of unfounded rumours. Here and there he makes valid points (e.g. the Emperor abolishing land based communication posts and resorting to sea based lines of communications) but on the whole much of what he says cannot be taken as properly evidenced.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Heraclius:

Hear, hear!!!!

 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.

 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.

 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.