Login

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 06-23-2004, 07:01 PM

I know I mispelled his name. Anyway does anybody know any good sources about the reign of justintine and maybe about his reconquering of rome only to have it taken back over again. THERE IS NO VICTORY WITHOUT DEFEAT, AND THERE IS NO DEFEAT WITHOUT VICTORY

Frank Miranda · 06-23-2004, 09:56 PM

Justinian, 
 
Nothing beats the primaries. Procopius is the best source (especially the detailed History of the Wars) followed by Agathias of Myrina. Read also Malalas' chronicle and those sections of the Liber Pontificalis for that time period. 
 
For secondary sources, there's JB Bury's History whose second volume is almost all of Justin's and Justinian's reigns, among many fine works.

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 06-24-2004, 12:43 PM

You can also read Procopius' Secret History: a very intriguing and "not official" facts about the dirty side of the Justinian's reign. 
Theodora was really a bad girl... 
 
read it at: 
 
[url=http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/library-procopius/secrethistory-2.htm" target="top]www.isidore-of-seville.com/library-procopius/secrethistory-2.htm[/url] 
 
Vale, 
Titus

06-24-2004, 01:11 PM

And if you like historical fiction, try Robert Graves "Count Belisarius"; his best novel, I think (and someone who knew Graves well once told me that Graves thought it his best fiction too). 
 
Shaun

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 06-24-2004, 04:07 PM

I thank you all for your suggestions. I find the byzantine empire very interesting and find that a lot of people don't focus on that empire which is a shame. THERE IS NO VICTORY WITHOUT DEFEAT, AND THERE IS NO DEFEAT WITHOUT VICTORY

07-04-2004, 07:15 PM

Yes, definitely check out both of Procopius' sources, but beware; his official one is probably too influenced by his not wanting to get in trouble and his "unauthorized" one (the Secret History) is probably influenced by a strong desire to get back at the royal family. Maybe it's my optimism and innocence coming out, here, but I can't quite imagine anyone being quite as unspeakably... geez, I can't find the words, as he decribes Theodora. Which to me is an indication that he's likely exaggerating. 
 
Aaron

Goffredo · 07-06-2004, 08:20 AM

I agree that the disinterest in Byzantium is unfortunate. 
Especially because there was continuity with Rome and anyone that is interested in the late roman empire cannot afford to bt not interested at least in the first two centuries of Byzantium (lets say until coming of Arabs). To understand why western half fell you have to understand why eastern half didn't. 
 
One reason many don't care about byzantium is that far too few care about late roman empire. It is a shame. The more I read about the late empire the more I think it is extremely interesting and closer to my personal sensitivity. I like contrasts and the resulting ambiguities: drammatic vs gradual transformations, breaks vs contiunity, immediate causes vs long term evolution, paganism vs christianity, anticipations of medieval situations, historical biforcations (how things might have gone differently),... 
 
p.s. regards Justinian I think he was a major incompetent. I am biased: Italy suffered terribly in the roman-gothic war and in addition the widespread destruction and weakness opened the door wide open for real jerks, the longobards that completed the destruction of what was left of the civil organization that was once rome. On a military level had Justinian given the necessary forces to his generals, or even given non-amibiguous powers to just one of them, rather then having them bicker, then maybe Italy would have been consolidated after the first "successful" part of the war.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-06-2004, 04:29 PM

Something that I find very interesting is how the fall of both the western and eastern roman empires, seemed to be followed, coincedentally by the end of an era, epoch, or whatever you want to call it. It seems that the fall of the western roman empire ended the ancient era, going by the classifications of history as ancient, middle ages, modern. It also triggered the dark ages in europe following the absense of roman law and various other institutions that governed europe. With the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, when it fell in 1453 to the Turks it seemed to be shortly after by the end of the middle ages, and the start of the modern age, or probably a better way to say it would be the age of discovery. I am not saying that the fall of these two empires was the reason for the end of these periods in history, but a very interesting to think about. I am not positive about the dates that the periods I talked about ended and the next began, so if someone knows the thought of dates it would be very helpful. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-07-2004, 05:56 AM

Hi Gnaeus, 
 
Would it not be more the case of us (modern times) looking back and setting the end of our (artificial) eras at or near the end of these Empires? 
 
For one, there has been (still is) a discussion amongst historians when the Western Empire did or did not fall. At the time, it certainly wasn't noticed as such. Was is when Rome was sacked for the first time (410), the second time (455) or when the last Emperor (in name) was sacked (476)? But then, the Germanic kings who ruled Rome after him certainly saw themselves as inheritors, not as conquerors. So when did this Roman era really end? 
 
The fall of Byzantium as the end of an era is even more artificial. the Empire had long been reduced to a city-state with outlying posessions, all of them paying tribute to the Ottoman Turks for decades. So when the city itself finally fell, was that the end of an era? I think the end of the Medieval period (ask Tim) is not signalled by the end of the Byzantine 'Empire', by by very different factors. I would say the fall of Byzantium near the end of what we now call the Medieval period is purely a coincidence. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Goffredo · 07-07-2004, 04:04 PM

Regards the Western half of the Roman empire each province had a different fate and different dates can be chosen. However the official date is still valid if one recognizes the full symbolic and political meaning: no western emperor longer existed! Similarly the official fall of Byzantium is a valid date because there no longer was an emperor, even if a degraded one. Even the Ottomans recognized the significance. Symbols count (are important) in history because they are important for humans. And humans make history. 
 
On a more mundane level things are more complicated. 
Like I mentioned in my earlier post in Italy the big damage to "roman italy" was due to the roman-gothic wars and the final blow was the coming of the Longobards. Before the reconquest of Justinian the gothic kingdom was benign and many features of the civil structure in Italy were in place with the roman element still very much intact. No deep integration of the goths occurred (an unfortunate thing) but Italy was a "happy" place. It certainly was the most prosperous of the ex-provinces. Then Justinian ruined it all. 
 
On a grander scale, in my opinion things in the West changed irreversibly with the death of Majoran (is that the spelling?). Centuries later in the east the Byzantium empire was a shadow of itself after the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, about 200 years before the official date.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-08-2004, 03:46 AM

Thanks for your responses. Jasper and I had a good conversation of this on AOLIM and he said something very similar to what Vortigern said. I realize that the fall of these two empires, wasn't the sole reason, or even one of the main reasons, for the fall of one period, or era, and the beginning of another, just an erie coincedence. I realize that byzantine empire was on its way down gradually slowly over several centuries, and since I have not yet had an oppurtunity to study byzantium, but plan on it, nor have I had an oppurtunity to visit Istanbul, number two on my list of places to visit behind Athens. Another question if i may, what do you think the impact of the great schism was on the fall of the byzantine empire. Was it being seperated religiously also seperating it geographically. Also what was a great reason for the Ottoman success against byzantium. Were they better organized, better generaled, or underestimated. Also wasn't it the Lombards who sacked rome the final time, i remember this because there is a Lombard, Illinois near me, or maybe that was jsut your nickname.

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-08-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:<hr>what do you think the impact of the great schism was on the fall of the byzantine empire.<hr> 
I think it had some impact. At least some of the western kingdoms would have been more eager to help when Byzantium was in dire straits. 
 
Quote:<hr>Also what was a great reason for the Ottoman success against byzantium. <hr> 
The Usman (Ottoman, Osman) Turks gradually took over Byzantine possessions, and being quite tolerant (no or hardly ethnic cleansing and a tendency to leave the locals their own customs and laws) they were able to hold on to them. 
 
Quote:<hr>Also wasn't it the Lombards who sacked rome the final time<hr> 
I thought not. Did they? Alaric and the Wisigoths did it for the first time in 410, Gaiseric with the Vandals in 455. The Ostrogoths took over the city later, and the Lombards even later, but as I recall neither sacked the city at the time. Not that there was much left to pillage.. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-08-2004, 04:25 PM

Maybe it was the Lombards who took control of Rome and the surrounding areas later and were just the people who are most well known with staying in the region. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-08-2004, 04:36 PM

After asking my question I was able to answer it. In case you were curious here is the answer to the Lombard question: 
 
The Lombards, or Langobards, were a Germanic tribe that began in southern Sweden and worked their way down into Italy. They became Italians in the process and gave their name to the northern Italian region of Lombardia. This movement from Sweden to Italy was gradual: it took four centuries. 
 
When the Lombards --whose original name, Langobards, refers to their long beards-- descended on Italy in the 6th century, they had to deal with several earlier waves of German invaders (particularly the Goths) as well as the resurgent Eastern Romans (who were a power in Italy into the 8th century). However, twenty years after the last of the Eastern Romans were expelled from Italy (751 AD.), the Lombards were stomped by the better organized Franks. This was, technically, the end of the Lombard kingdom in Italy. But unlike earlier Germans, they had not maintained the ancient Roman forms of government during their domination of the Peninsula, nor did the Lombard duchies which survived the Frankish onslaught in the South. The political landscape in Italy was given a German overlay by the Lombards, where eventually they spoke Italian and became Catholic. Basically, Italy became another Germanic area.

Frank Miranda · 07-09-2004, 03:58 AM

The Lombards never sacked nor controlled Rome itself (but a large swath of Italy nevertheless). Although they were set to do that in 751 when- as the article you quote notes- they were crushed by Pepin the Short (who was called in by the Pope). 
 
For those interested, here's fairly good map of [url=http://upload.sh0t.com/stuff/Lombard%20Italy.gif" target="top]Lombard Italy[/url] in the 8th century. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=frankmiranda>Frank Miranda</A> at: 7/9/04 6:00 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me