To what extent did Justinian revive the Roman empire? [help]

[mp0295]

So I have a document based questions essay tomorrow. For thoos who dont know, you write about a prompt and support your ideas using documents.
This is it. http://books.google.com/books?id=Nm5...empire&f=false

The thing is, non of the documents support my point o view: That Justinian did not revive the old roman empire. So do you guys have any ideas what to write about and prove it? What i have to write about is in the gray box in the link.

[Boyar Son]

start defining what the roman empire was (make it biased to your side). then write what part of it did Justinian revive. then say the eastern Romans were just Greeks. that'll get hellenophiles mad.

[Carpathian Wolf]

He revived it territorially. But the Roman Empire fell in the 1400s.

[mp0295]

Yes i know that ERE called themselves Romans and Byzantines in a made up term, just in this case it's useful. Urh i hate myself for being this shallow but i think im guna have to say he revived it, other wise it's impossible.

[bushbush]

Yes i know that ERE called themselves Romans and Byzantines in a made up term, just in this case it's useful. Urh i hate myself for being this shallow but i think im guna have to say he revived it, other wise it's impossible.

revived it probably temporarily. He really really stretched the eastern empire's resources thin just to try to recapture the glory of the empire. The land he captured fell quite rapidly after his death in a few generations and all the resources lost to fight the wars in the West actually made the eastern empire itself vulnerable. To an extent, not only he did not revive the empire, he facilitated its weakening and downfall eventually.

[mp0295]

revived it probably temporarily. He really really stretched the eastern empire's resources thin just to try to recapture the glory of the empire. The land he captured fell quite rapidly after his death in a few generations and all the resources lost to fight the wars in the West actually made the eastern empire itself vulnerable. To an extent, not only he did not revive the empire, he facilitated its weakening and downfall eventually.

I agree but dumb biased DBQ makes it nearly impossible to write about. And my teacher already murders an average essay so i have to write the best i can to get like a 95

[nce_wht_guy]

He didn't at all really. He established quite an architectural an literary legacy for himself and did of course extend the empire's borders. But, he bankrupt the empire doing so and left it weaker than when he took over it. That's a bit of a half arse'd summary but, there you are.

[hellheaven1987]

Justinian did revive some Roman traditional customs of early Imperial time, but overall the effort did not have a deep impact on Byzantium history. He did, however, chose to be more initiative about Byzantium's move in Italy, which would shape the history of Europe in next three hundreds years.

[Ludicus]

Evaluate the reign of Justinian

In retrospect seems something of a failure, but he reigned a long time and his contemporaries were struck by his temporary successes.
He was almost always at war, and often he was victorious. Even the Persian wars/payments to the Persian king were successful in the limite sense that he not lose the empire much ground.
But,
the liberation of his resources for a policy of recovery (in the West - Justinian´s aim) always eluded him.
Nevertheless, his generalBelisarius destroyed/recovered the vandal Africa for the empire, he went on to invade Italy -the eviction of the Ostrogoths, the unification (once more) of all Italy under imperial rule.
In Spain, the imperial armies exploited the rivalry between Visigoths and set up again the imperial rule in Cordoba. In the Mediterranean, the byzantine ships were supreme.

But it did not last, by the end of the century most Italy was gone again, and in eastern Europe Justinian had never been successful in dealing with the "barbarians" - well, according to Procopius:
" .. he was more than ready to squander it in insane display, or give it as an unnecessary bribe to the barbarians. In short, he neither held on to any money himself nor let anyone else keep any: as if his reason were not avarice, but jealousy of those who had riches. Driving all wealth from the country of the Romans in this manner, he became the cause of universal poverty... He gave much of it to the Huns who, from time to time, entered the state; and in consequence the Roman provinces were subject to constant incursions, for these barbarians, having once tasted Roman wealth, never forgot the road that led to it"

But within empire,he left a remarkable imprint -his monuments (the greatest is the basilica of St Sophia), all over the empire public buildings/churches/baths/new towns mark the reignAlexandria, Antioch and Beirut were great cities. The institutional "monument" of the reign was Justinian´s codification of Roman law. ( in 4 collections, a millenium of Roman jurisprudence was put together, with a deep influence across the centuries)
However Justinian´s efforts to win administrative/organizational reform were less successful.

[ray243]

So I have a document based questions essay tomorrow. For thoos who dont know, you write about a prompt and support your ideas using documents.
This is it. http://books.google.com/books?id=Nm5...empire&f=false

The thing is, non of the documents support my point o view: That Justinian did not revive the old roman empire. So do you guys have any ideas what to write about and prove it? What i have to write about is in the gray box in the link.

Instead of finding things that did not exist to prove your ideas, why not accept that it is likely that your hypothesis isn't correct and you might need to write an essay that proves that Justinian revived the old Roman Empire?

You can't write a valid argument or essay proving your point as correct because you want it to be correct.

If I write an lengthy essay about Churchill is a Nazi for instance, and I couldn't find anything to back up my claim, no matter how good my writing skills is, I will fail my paper.

It's not about how do you present your idea, it's about how did you come to a conclusion. Did you come to a conclusion because you have done a throughout research on the topic, and all evidence you can find points towards a certain viewpoint?

[mp0295]

Instead of finding things that did not exist to prove your ideas, why not accept that it is likely that your hypothesis isn't correct and you might need to write an essay that proves that Justinian revived the old Roman Empire?

You can't write a valid argument or essay proving your point as correct because you want it to be correct.

If I write an lengthy essay about Churchill is a Nazi for instance, and I couldn't find anything to back up my claim, no matter how good my writing skills is, I will fail my paper.

It's not about how do you present your idea, it's about how did you come to a conclusion. Did you come to a conclusion because you have done a throughout research on the topic, and all evidence you can find points towards a certain viewpoint?

Yes I could prove myself quite capably if it wasn't a DBQ. You HAVE to use the documents to prove your point. It would be insane to do that in 40 minutes worth of writing time to try to spin the documents in a way that validates my thesis. And that statement make my lose any idea that you might be right: No one is every truly correct in history, just varying degrees of correctness, and to flat out say im wrong is just ignorant. Ive known about byzantine history very much so, i just think if the ways he was successful, he created a more Greek empire. He did revive some Roman aspects but not enough to validate the statement that he revived the Roman empire as it was before the split in my opinion.

[ray243]

Yes I could prove myself quite capably if it wasn't a DBQ. You HAVE to use the documents to prove your point.

The point of writing that particular essay in my opinion has less to do with how much external sources you know, and what is the correct opinion that all historians should take. It's simply an exercise to test how well you can form and justify an opinion based on the limited source you have.

Let's say EVERYTHING we know about the Byzantine Empire during this time is limited to those source only, and there are simply no other source in that exist. Can any historians prove that the Justinian didn't revive the Roman Empire?

Many people keep forgetting that studying history is more than memorising the facts and write them down on paper.

[mp0295]

The point of writing that particular essay in my opinion has less to do with how much external sources you know, and what is the correct opinion that all historians should take. It's simply an exercise to test how well you can form and justify an opinion based on the limited source you have.

Let's say EVERYTHING we know about the Byzantine Empire during this time is limited to those source only, and there are simply no other source in that exist. Can any historians prove that the Justinian didn't revive the Roman Empire?

Many people keep forgetting that studying history is more than memorising the facts and write them down on paper.

Yes i agree with you. That is the point of a DBQ. But the DBQ was biased in the way it was made. I should mention then that why teacher specifically said we need ot make our own opinions on this so i wanted too. Perhaps the thing was biased on purpose to do what you just said, but the documents also barely had anything to do with the Essay objective. And i totally agree with you on the last part also, i think it would be obvious because of how i wanted to do something harder just so i can voice my opinion

[ray243]

Yes i agree with you. That is the point of a DBQ. But the DBQ was biased in the way it was made. I should mention then that why teacher specifically said we need ot make our own opinions on this so i wanted too. Perhaps the thing was biased on purpose to do what you just said, but the documents also barely had anything to do with the Essay objective. And i totally agree with you on the last part also, i think it would be obvious because of how i wanted to do something harder just so i can voice my opinion

Perhaps you can mention the bias of the sources your essay, and discuss about whether the bias is valid enough?

For example, you can say that all the sources point to this conclusion, but the limitation of the sources is unable to give us a clear and definitive judgement. Also, you can justify why do you think the source are bias, and further discuss what are the details apparent in the source that make you question the source.

[motiv-8]

Justinian's greatest contribution to revivication was through material culture, by far, but even that was built upon the progress made by some of his predecessors, most notably Anastasius and his fiscal excellence.

Ultimately Justinian did not revive the old Roman Empire which continued to be gradually known as an ancestral past, thanks to the ineffectual results of his wars, particularly in Italy where they were far more disastrous both for the peninsula and the Empire, but he came the closest by far. What could be argued however is that, in trying to revitalize the old empire, he laid the groundwork for the very different empire that would emerge, still known contemporaneously and by its inhabitants as Roman, but identified in modern times as Byzantine.

[administrator of yackady]

Sorry to butt in
but do you think if Justninian hadnt spent so much resources on reconquets which didnt last long (apart from Southern Italy)
the Empire would of been able to defend itself against the Persian occupation of the Southern Territories, and the Arab invasion which followed that?

[Demetrios of Messene]

...
That Justinian did not revive the old roman empire. So do you guys have any ideas what to write about and prove it? What i have to write about is in the gray box in the link.

I did not go through the linked documentations and perhaps you have already completed your essay, but anyway:

The statement "Justinian revived the old roman empire" is false or misleading:
Justinian did not move his capital back to Rome, he did not give the senate more powers, he did not attempt to change the religion back to the old roman beliefs, he did allow latin to be replaced with greek in some of his written laws (if my memory is not playing games with me).

I believe that the only emperor who willingly tried to revive the old Roman Empire was Julian (the "Apostate").

Justinian tried to territorially revive the roman empire of his time by expanding his rule over territories which used to be part of the roman empire of the old. Justinian is hailed as a great leader because he pretty much succeeded (and more importantly he produced a monumental code of laws and he also decorated Constantinople with great buildings and works of art). At the same time he is criticised because his territorial gains were not consolidated and left the empire financially and militarily exhausted at the end of his reign. So even the question if Justinian territorially revived the Roman Empire is hard to answer.

[Visarion]

well he conquered Italy from the Ostrogoths and Northwestern Africa from the Vandals...