- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, do you think Justinian’s administration was beneficial to the Byzantine Empire, or did it do more harm than good? On the one hand, he codified Roman laws that would go on to be used in medieval Europe. On the other hand, his decision to retake parts of the old Western Empire may have stretched his forces too thin and seemingly enticed the Persians to invade from the East. Final verdict – good or not so good?
So the answer is “all of the above”?
I used to think that Justinian’s tenure was quite impressive, but recently I’ve heard that his power didn’t necessarily translate into a benefit for the Byzantine Empire. From what I heard about the book, the account of Procopius’s views on Justinian and Theodora were – how shall we say – “less than flattering”. If the chapter titles in the book are any indication of the content therein, you can see why:
- “Justinian’s Misgovernment”
- “The Destruction Wrought by a Demon-Emperor”
- “The Crimes of Theodora”
- “Everyone and Everything Sacrificed to the Emperor’s Greed”
You get the point!
Procopius would flunk out of graduate school. 🙂 You now see why secondary sources are important especially when dealing with very old sources such as Procopius. People wrote histories for reasons other than the love of History or to scientifically analyze their subject. They wrote histories to slander or to laud people or events. What Procopius is good for is learning about minute details of court life, civil policies etc….so that a socio-economic framework can be constructed for an actual empirical study.
Right, I wasn’t thinking that Procopius would offer an impartial look at Justian’s reign, though this isn’t to say that what he has to say isn’t at least partially factual. He did, after all, hold a high office within the Byzantine Empire which would have given him access to an important perspective on things. Then again, I don’t know why he said some of the things he did….like Justinian walking around at night with a head that morphed into a weird shape. That was just weird.
Though Justinian believed in Christianity, he likely still believed in daemons and or jinns that influenced the world around him. It might have been a talisman of somekind to channel them or ward them off. Pagan elements died a slow death in the ancient world.
About 1/3 of the empire died of plague during Justinian's rule. The plague had so much impact that it makes Justinian's actions almost irrelevant. Without the plague he probably would have restored the “glory of Rome.” After the plague the Byzantine Empire couldn't sustain his accomplishments.
That’s a good point about the plague’s effect on Justinian’s actions. However, we might say instead that the Byzantines under Justinian were able to accomplish a lot despite such a high hurdle. Was it irrelevant that Justinian re-took a large section of Italy, only to have it slip from Byzantine control a relatively short time later?
I’m trying to think of long-lasting Byzantine influences on the lands that Justinian re-conquered (Italy, Africa), but cannot think of many. The only lasting impact was the creation of the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna, which would go on to be influential in Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel in Aachen a few hundred years later. Charlemagne’s church would have an impact on the entire history of church construction in the West, so perhaps we can say that this was indirectly aided by Justinian.
