View Poll Results: how do you rate Justinians "work"

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • positive

    25 69.44%
  • negative

    7 19.44%
  • no opinion

    4 11.11%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: A dispute about Justinian

  1. #1

    Default A dispute about Justinian

    Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus


    AoD2 is focused on the era of Justinian


    • he was comes in 519
    • magister equitum et peditum praesentalis in 521
    • 4 times consul 521 528 533 534
    • Caesar 525
    • Co-emperor in 527
    • Augustus (1st of August)
    His wife was the beautiful Theodora.

    In 533/34 he gave the order to restore the empires' power in Africa. That resulted finally in his famous renovatio imperii, or "restoration of the empire".

    The codex Iustinianus was a milestone, the Hagia Sophia probably the most beautiful and biggest church.


    Finally, the result of his lifework



    was his lifework successful?

    What do you think about him?

  2. #2

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    well, technical speaking it wasn't Justinian who re-conquered the west. It was Flavius Belisarius and later Narses. Also his cousin Germanus was a well skilled general.
    But, yes, I think generally he was one of the "top 10" emperors. Finally he gave the orders to unify the empire under the imperial banner.

  3. #3

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    I dont look much at his command skills as he wasnt much the genral but Narses and Belisarius were, his administration stuff and reforms internally in administration was more important i think as it changed the Roman Empire to a new modernEastern Roman that shaped the Western Fuedal states, however as soon as he died the Empire lost the newly conquered lands,..,.

  4. #4

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Justinian was a horrible emperor! Though, yes, he did manage to reconquer Italia and Africa, the conquest of the former could probably be cited as a direct cause for the Dark Ages. Justinian took his greatest general, mistreated him, harmed him, jailed him...

    Not a great guy. Plus, his massive building projects left the imperial finances in ruins (though the Hagia Sophia might have been worth it...) and he taxed his subjects to the brink of poverty.

    Would that Belisarius had been slightly more disloyal and had declared himself Emperor.

    So, in my opinion, quite a negative fellow.

    EDIT: Though his cultural legacy was impressive; I'll give him that at the very least. The codification of Roman law was a wise decision, and as I said earlier we're all glad that he decided to impoverish his empire by constructing the Hagia Sophia.

    Game of the Fates
    Mod of the week on hold -- I've played nearly every RTW mod out there.
    BOYCOTT THE USE OF SMILEYS! (Okay, just once)
    Antiochos VII...last true scion of the Seleucid dynasty...rest in peace, son of Hellas.
    I've returned--please forgive my long absence.

  5. #5
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    An interesting thread.
    Pitty that some people are voting in that poll, but only few give a statement why they voted neg. or pos.
    Anyway

    I voted for "positive".

    It is absolutely right what Antiochos said, the tax pressure was extremly high. It is also correct if somebody say: if Justinian concentrated his power and military ressources for the east - the empire had a better chance to survive the next 1000 years."
    well, so far. In my eyes one of the exciting "what happend if"-questions.

    Justinian is for me one of the most shining persons in Roman history, a true latin emperor, a very strategical man.
    He was born as a man who learned in school that there is only "one" empire in the known world. This empire is ruled by one senior and one iunior Augustus.
    With that fact in mind he became emperor in 527AD. Of course he was realistic and intelligent enough to understand the evolution in the west. But according his "Roman" appreciation it was "naturally" to re-conquer the west. Of course he accepted the post Roman states with his Magistri Militae on top of those states. Officially the Vandals or Gothic and Burgundian kings had worn the Patricius title and were - at least officially - representatives of the imperial government in Konstantinople.

    According his own self-conception he had little alternatives.
    The re-conquering of the west was his duty - he was the Roman emperor.
    Sourrounded by reliable officers, generals, statesmen, famous senators and an army he had the tools to "try" this experiment.
    Terms and conditions were propitious.

    But even Justinian was human - a person - and no machine.
    His claim to rule over the west was legal and finally successful, even if some old roman provinces were still missing (e.g. gaul or Britannia).
    A Roman emperor was once more the ruler over an united Imperium Romanum.

    The problem for the empire after his death was of course an "overstreched" frontier, no money, an army which was basically to small for that empire. But in my opinion there was another thing which had at least the same importance: it was the missing authority and assertivness of the following emperors to hold the borders.

    Always when a skilled and reliable emperor ruled (after Iustinian) like Herakleios, Basileos the Bulgarslayer and others - the empire was able to go into the offensive and finally a small professional mobile-field-army was able to enlarge the borders of the empire.

    It is by far too easy (and hist. incorrect) to say "it was the blame of Iustinian" that the empire crushed after his death. Too many factors appeared after his death.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; June 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    voted positive for Justinian
    His complete life is a novel.

  7. #7

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    That doesn't prove that he was a good emperor.

    According his own self-conception he had little alternatives.
    The re-conquering of the west was his duty - he was the Roman emperor.
    Sourrounded by reliable officers, generals, statesmen, famous senators and an army he had the tools to "try" this experiment.
    Terms and conditions were propitious.

    But even Justinian was human - a person - and no machine.
    His claim to rule over the west was legal and finally successful, even if some old roman provinces were still missing (e.g. gaul or Britannia).
    A Roman emperor was once more the ruler over an united Imperium Romanum.
    While I agree with you here, I must point out that reconquering the West did both the Empire and the world a great disserivce. Now I completely concur about his mindset; how could he not believe that? However, as you said, he was surrounded by able officers and statesmen. But he abused the one man who won him back the west...(excluding perhaps Ioannes and Narses, but they did more harm than good). Thus his reconquest of Italy was slowed and bogged down. By the time it was completed, Rome had less than 500 citizens and the peninsula was experiencing the worst poverty in ages. All Justinian did was end a golden age of rule under Odoacer and Theoderic.

    I disagree with you on the later emperors, as well. Maurice, though parsimonious, was extremely competent. Justin II was not so great, I'll give you, but the empire was hurt badly under Justinian.

    Game of the Fates
    Mod of the week on hold -- I've played nearly every RTW mod out there.
    BOYCOTT THE USE OF SMILEYS! (Okay, just once)
    Antiochos VII...last true scion of the Seleucid dynasty...rest in peace, son of Hellas.
    I've returned--please forgive my long absence.

  8. #8
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    According your understanding a Roman emperor - let's call him Justinian - should retreat all his forces from Italy because the war was destroying Italy? Or because Rome was in danger to have less than 500 citizens?
    (which is by the way totally speculative and was probably only the case for some weeks).
    Sure, Italy was destroyed after the war. Millions were dead due to war, hunger, and plagues.
    And of course nobody forgot that Justinian gave finally the order to attack Italy.
    But it was according law Roman land! It was a re-conquering.

    The only negative thing what I see is the number of used soldiers in that war. If he sent 20.000 more to Italy the war perhaps had been finished very quick. That was a man-power problem. (but this is only a speculation from my side)

    But again: Justinian learned in school that the missing western part of Rome is a shame! And with that in mind he started a war to re-conquer back the west, starting with north africa.
    On the other side, perhaps he made the decision the first time when africa was part of the empire again (but this is another chapter).

    Maurice was of course not a bad emperor and of course extremly competent - no doubt. But not all emperors in Roman history were like Maurice.

    Another word to the great Belisar: Justinian was born in a difficult time. He saw uprisings, and usurpations by other generals (his uncle Justin is the best examle). It was indeed possible to become an important man - even if you was a regular soldier before. (as said: see Justin, his unlce)
    With this fact in mind it is the most normal thing in the world that Justinian was carefully concerning his officers - esp. if you have such famous men in your line like Belisarius or Germanus.
    Of course, you can say that Belisar was always correct to Justinian - on the other side all "what-if"questions are speculative and our personal opinion.
    Please don't forget this.

    And everybody understood now that you don't like Justinian, that's ok and you have good reasons. But you should also respect the opinion of other people who have good reasons to like him.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; June 18, 2009 at 05:54 PM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    According your understanding a Roman emperor - let's call him Justinian - should retreat all his forces from Italy because the war was destroying Italy? Or because Rome was in danger to have less than 500 citizens?
    (which is by the way totally speculative and was probably only the case for some weeks).
    Sure, Italy was destroyed after the war. Millions were dead due to war, hunger, and plagues.
    And of course nobody forgot that Justinian gave finally the order to attack Italy.
    But it was according law Roman land! It was a re-conquering.
    Oh, no, no no. You're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that Justinian's invasion of Italy was fundamentally wrong, but that it was mishandled. His recalling of Belisarius at most inopportune times hurt his cause; I believe there was one point where he recalled Belisarius and he left a council of three generals in charge, two of which were incompetent (which caused the rise of Totila? I need to go back over this, heh). Things like that. If he had enacted a good, fast campaign, then there would have been no problem.

    Another word to the great Belisar: Justinian was born in a difficult time. He saw uprisings, and usurpations by other generals (his uncle Justin is the best examle). It was indeed possible to become an important man - even if you was a regular soldier before. (as said: see Justin, his unlce)
    With this fact in mind it is the most normal thing in the world that Justinian was carefully concerning his officers - esp. if you have such famous men in your line like Belisarius or Germanus.
    Of course, you can say that Belisar was always correct to Justinian - on the other side all "what-if"questions are speculative and our personal opinion.
    Please don't forget this.
    I suppose you have a point, there. Usurpation was the bane of the Roman Emperor. What-if is a quandary, as well.

    but truly, I just look at some of Justinian's actions and think 'petty'. I believe there was one point where Belisarius was recalled and, upon being sent back, was downgraded from "magister militium" to "comes stabuli". Just things like that (obviously a reduction in rank would not reduce Belisarius's ability to take a throne).

    And everybody understood now that you don't like Justinian, that's ok and you have good reasons. But you should also respect the opinion of other people who have good reasons to like him.
    I apologize wholeheartedly if I have come across being mean or bigoted. It's all in the spirit of debate. I'm not degrading you for your opinion, merely arguing with you. Sorry if there's a misunderstanding (hard to convey tone in text, if you know what I mean)

    Game of the Fates
    Mod of the week on hold -- I've played nearly every RTW mod out there.
    BOYCOTT THE USE OF SMILEYS! (Okay, just once)
    Antiochos VII...last true scion of the Seleucid dynasty...rest in peace, son of Hellas.
    I've returned--please forgive my long absence.

  10. #10
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    no prob mate. That kind of discussions bring life into the thread

  11. #11

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Sadly the only true unsuccessful thing was the crush defeat at Adrianople two centuries before....anyway in my opinion the justinian's idea was not wrong but the approach.

  12. #12
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,160

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    I've been re-reading Procopius again lately and am struck by the gap between Justinian's ambition as pointed out by Pompeius Magnus and the meagre resources he sometimes mobilised through his generals to achieve that ambition: there is a real sense that Justianian grasped for greatness yet remained vulnerable to fears of revolt and usurpation. This made him limit the size of the troops under Belisarius for example and also recall him while seeming to encourage discord among the generals in order to keep them in line, as it were.

    Admittedly this is through Procopius's eyes and we all know his bias here! But I wonder if Justinian had been able to trust in himself and those around him Africa and Italy might have been united earlier and under a stable regime? Certainly, lack of resources and money ruined the later African campaign and prolonged the Italian one despite the incoming Lombard invasion looming on the horizon.

  13. #13

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Greter damage than reconquest were done firts by Justinian's plague and then by total war with Persia and consequeantal Arab invasion which reduced Roman empire to the romp. (and led to the rise of Franks on other flank) Justinian was not as briliant as Constantine but given his limited resources he acomplished a lot especialy in system were merely holding the crown (and your head) on you was chalenging enough. Africa which was far more important than Italy was Roman untill VII century thanks to him so he sucseded where Antemius and Majorian fell but he was not able to reverse all disasters the useless Theodosian dynasty had brought. Magnus Maximus shud realy won in 388 AD; imagine the world without Honorius and Walentinian the III.




  14. #14
    julianus heraclius's Avatar The Philosopher King
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Ah, if only Belisarius had accepted the Goths offer to become Emperor in the West!!

    Avatar & Signature by Joar

  15. #15

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Seconded... Or if only Vitalian hadn't failed... That man is a story of lost potential.

    Game of the Fates
    Mod of the week on hold -- I've played nearly every RTW mod out there.
    BOYCOTT THE USE OF SMILEYS! (Okay, just once)
    Antiochos VII...last true scion of the Seleucid dynasty...rest in peace, son of Hellas.
    I've returned--please forgive my long absence.

  16. #16

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    wow, so many different opinions. Thanks a lot.

  17. #17

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Im glad we, in this time, don't put our "rightfull/legal" claims to other lands into action anymore. Like they did then. "Legal through submission and conquest" .

    Me myself (William the Silent) kicked such emperor, that had such claims, out of the lands of my people at the cost of incredible sacrifice of my people and me. I personally sacrificed my high nobel status, all my possension and even my life. What I earned back was true honour, loyalty, compassion and greatness and the hearts of my people.

    In that William the Silent or Prince William of Orange and Nassua was greater then any of these roman conquerors.

    A lion beat a dragon. He lead the people of the Netherlands against the elite troops and best general of the Habsburg empire. For the good of poor helpless cruelly submitted people. True greatness. For the benefit of simple people not personal honour.

    And for all he did he never claimed a throne.

    I'm looking forward to AoD II .
    Last edited by William the Silent; July 03, 2009 at 05:27 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    Ehm...that was rather confusing.

    So...

    A) You're posting in character...
    B) You're saying that William the Silent trumps Justinian as a ruler, and that Justinian is in fact an unjust tyrant?
    C) Is it off-topic?

    If B, I agree on general if not specific terms. If C, I've no idea.

    Game of the Fates
    Mod of the week on hold -- I've played nearly every RTW mod out there.
    BOYCOTT THE USE OF SMILEYS! (Okay, just once)
    Antiochos VII...last true scion of the Seleucid dynasty...rest in peace, son of Hellas.
    I've returned--please forgive my long absence.

  19. #19

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    What romans called legal was accomplished by conquering someones lands, killing half of the men, taking the cities and then force the leaders to sign a treaty that gave then the "legal" rights to the lands. None submitted to the romans by free will.

    For me it sounds a little silly to justify all these emperors and rulers waging war to take back so called "rightfully" owned lands. If you can claim lands to be your legal possesion through force and submission, then you can loose them the same way too. So when they lost them they belonged rightfully to someone else according to their own principels.

    They might have been great conquerors, but they didn't posses the great character you would expect of great men. They were ambitious and had no problem slaughtering thousands for these ambitions. They cared only for their own greatness and maybe their few followers.

    William the Silent outsmarted the ruler of the most powerfull empire of it's time. Through statemanship and military tactics. He fought them for years lost many battles but in the end won. And also on legal basis. Phillip II broke the treaty his dad had signed with the Netherlands. Not even Phillips best and most cruel general with elite soldiers could submit the dutch in the end.

    William was the greatest statesman of it's time, I believe. He not only fougt for his people, but also for the freedom of consciense in a time of great persecution for religieus believes.

    There have been more like him. But I just wanted to give a little contrast to what we sometimes think is greatness. Greatness for me is in character and victory against all odds for the good of others and not just self. Accomplishments by military force might look impressive for all these conquerors (and I love military strategy), but not if you look at the suffering that took place for worthless reasons.

    According to my interpretation of greatness Justinian didn't have it. Just took advantage of other peoples weakness and qualities of a Belisarius and maybe his "unlegal" wife.
    Just my perspective.

    I love to conquer the world in RTW and I sometimes put whole cities to the sword for my personal good .

    If you like oldfashioned historical writing, the history of the Dutch Republic is online (starting in roman times):
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2393657/Rise-of-the-Dutch-Republic-the-Complete-155584-by-Motley-John-Lothrop-18141877

    I'm maybe off-topic, sorry!
    Or out of my mind. Sorry too .
    Last edited by William the Silent; July 05, 2009 at 02:03 AM.

  20. #20
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: A dispute about Justinian

    it is ok to give other historical examples - in your case that of some dutch heroes.
    But don't let us go to far off-topic.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •