Talk:Justinian I

Anecdota of Procopius

Hardly any mention of this at all...should it perhaps not be mentioned a little more, even if it is now considered more of a polemic than even-handed history? Especially since Procopius is the primary source on his reign, it doesn't seem even handed to select the propagandistic (most of Procopius is recognized as being far too complimentary of Justinian, probably out of fear) over the polemic (the Anecdota). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Corn?

"In addition long-distance trade flourished, reaching as far north as Cornwall where tin was exchanged for Roman corn." I thought corn was only found in the Americas at this time. 70.129.167.102 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's maize...corn is, well, whatever grain the author meant. Wheat I guess? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace again

Don't you think that the part about the birthplace of Iustinian should be changed or at leat corrected to reflect the lack of certainty where exactly it was? The site if Justinianan Prima is identified as Caricin Grad near Lebane, Serbia in all Wikipedias that have an article about it (Serbian, German, English, Albanian). As far as I know, and I do know a bit about it although it is not my speciality, Caricin Grad is considered to be the most likely candidate for Justiniana Prima and Justinians birthplace by the majority of scholars that deal with this period. There is also a sizable litterature on the topic, of which I cannot at the moment mention anything since I don't have my own bibliography with me nor am I close to a library. I've also excavated on the site and, the way I see it, the earchaeological evidence (since the literary one is less than clear) points to Caricin Grad as the site. I didn't want to make any changes myself since there are other people who have put a lot of effort and good work into this arcticle and the final decision should be theirs but I believe that at least a note on the ambiguity of evidence should be added. Dagobert 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary References

Don't know if you want to include a literary reference section, but for what it's worth, Justinian appears in Dante's Divine Comedy. He is on Mercury, in the second realm of heaven.

Sure, go ahead and add the section. Perhaps A Struggle for Rome and other historical novels could also be included. Iblardi 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Citation of Procopius about 100 million casualties has to be deleted. In fact the population of his empire was less than half of this figure.--deguef (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Justinian's origin

You are removing sourced material from the article based on your own WP:POV, like it or not, the references you removed respect WP:RS, and removing reliably sourced material is considered vandalism in wikipedia. Please seek consensus for each of your removals first or they will be reverted and try to discuss changes rather than engaging in an edit war.- Best regards Bartebly62 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bartebly62. The point is that, as Vasiliev indicates, there is no consensus on Justinian's descent, simply because the sources do not tell us anything about it inform us about it in a way that would enable us to link him to a specific (ancient or modern) ethnic group. You can easily verify this by looking it up in relevant literature, such as Vasiliev's classic work. Compare also this article in the Concise Encyclopedia Britannica, in which Justinian is called an Illyrian. The only thing we know is that his family came from a region where Latin (rather than Greek) was spoken; everything beyond that is speculation. Having our article say that Justinian was of ancient Macedonian stock is therefore simply misleading. Now, the sources you provided are non-specialist, i.e. they don't specifically deal with Justinian or even Byzantine history.

By the way, accusing me of vandalism / edit warring when I do provide a specialized source is not helpful at all. Iblardi 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I am copying the above discussion from our user talk pages to this page. Iblardi 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Saint" Justinian??

Not that I have a problem with it, but when was Justinian cannonised? I know within the Orthodox church, there is not an official process, but I had never heard anyone referring to him as a saint. I doubt if anyone ever did. Is this a modern zeal? --Khodadad 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The halo surrounding his head indicates sainthood in the Orthodox Church. Many books do not list him among the saints, but he was canonized around the year 700. http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=101 You'll see a reference to him as such near the bottom.Will 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The nimbus or halo was a Late Antique convention to indicate sanctity, it probably derived from sun-worship, it was later adopted by the Christian Church. It was used in depictions of pagan Roman emperors (including Licinius) and gods, a surviving frontal image of Jupiter has a nimbus. The image of Justinian in San Vitale with the nimbus was executed during Justinians lifetime. Urselius 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That page indicates that Justinian was healed by a saint but it didn't indicate that Justinian was thought to be a saint. I don't think that paintings showing him with a halo really suggest more than the opinion of the painter or the painter's sponsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Wiki certainly lists him as St. Justinian: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Justinian. That's not a sufficient source by itself if this is really contested. Orthodox iconographic tradition does not tolerate individual painters making up who is a saint, btw. That nimbus means a lot more than just one painter's opinion. Tb (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as is said above, it is an iconographical convention to express Byzantine ideas on the sanctity of Roman emperorship, not as much of the person. Every emperor was depicted with a nimbus around his head during his lifetime, including historically impopular ones such as Romanus IV Diogenes or Alexios IV Angelos. I wouldn't draw conclusions about the saintly status of an individual emperor based on the use of the nimbus alone. Iblardi (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general, though it's going to depend on the particular person. In this case, there isn't any doubt. Tb (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no doubt at all. Go here: http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/search.asp and search Justinian. You will find a listing, complete with feast day on Oct. 14th. This is the official site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and I'm pretty sure they're not in the habit of posting listings about saints that aren't actually venerated. Really not surprising that he's a saint, considering how rigorously he upheld Orthodox doctrine. Peace! Themill, who can't be bothered to log in right now.

Then what about Theodora? The site mentions Justinian and Theodora as a couple, yet according to tradition she had monophysitic sympathies, which makes her orthodoxy much less obvious. Iblardi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

It seems to me that Justinian's name contradicts the outlines given in the article on Roman naming conventions (as do, in fact, many names of Roman Emperors). Following those outlines he would have been called something like Flavius Iustinus Sabbatianus (assuming, that "Sabbatius" was his original nomen gentile). Why did he take another way and took his adopted father's name in the -ianus-form?194.166.222.215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.222.215 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that naming conventions had become blurred by Justinian's time. It would also be irrelevant to speak of 'Sabbatius' as a nomen gentile in Justinian's case, since his ancestors were not of ancient Roman stock but rather Romanized Illyrians. Iblardi (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek name

Ireland101, this is ridiculous, we are not claiming that Justinian himself was Greek, simply that his name in Greek is important to history. The majority of his empire was Greek, and he is a saint in the Orthodox Church. Greek is entirely relevant here. I apologize that this has absolutely nothing to do with Macedonia; no need to be offended this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you mean. A majority of his empire was Greek? Last time I checked Greece is quite insignificant in the whole spectrum of Byzantium. I know he is a saint in the Orthodox church, did you know that there are 15 orthodox churches, only 1 being Greek. I do not know what you are getting at, the church was made by Constantine a Roman. Greeks make up a minority of Orthodox Christians just as Romanians and Serbians. The majority are Russian. Although it is unrelated to the dispute, it does have to do with Macedonia as Justinian was born in Macedonia, just as Nero was born in Rome. Ireland101 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Why did I even bother? Sigh. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Of course it makes sense to include Justinian's name in Greek. Almost all of our direct sources on him and his reign are in Greek; the culture and the unofficial language of his empire were Greek; all important literature during his reign was written in Greek; his later laws were issued in Greek. The only thing not Greek about Justinian is the man himself, a fact of which we are informed in the article. So yes, keep the Greek name. Iblardi (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I could've thought Ireland would pop up here as well. Don't worry about the naming issue - he is keen on removing names in certain languages and adding such in irrelevant once to prove some odd point of his. Just a little comment - how could Greek be irrelevant for an empire whose official language is, let me see, yeah - Greek. --Laveol ^T 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the man himself was not Greek. If you demand that the Greek spelling of his name be placed because his laws were issued in Greek, then the Albanian spelling of his name has an equal right - if not more - to be displayed since he was Illyrian. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.97.98.37 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that Justinian spoke Latin rather than Greek would be a reason to introduce the Albanian language. The point is that Justinian was primarily known by his Greek name to the majority of his subjects, including Procopius, who is the main literary source for his reign. Iblardi (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, then, shouldn't Trajan, Hadrian, and Maximinus Thrax (whose only contemporary source is Herodian) all have the Greek versions of their names included? The point is, I think, that since he was Illyrian by ethnicity, then his Albanian name is appropriate (After all, even the L.O.C concludes that there is a relationship between Illyrians and Albanians). RAMerkel ([[User talk:: RAMerkel|talk]]) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a relationship between Latin and Italian. That doesn't mean that Italian names should be included in every article dealing with classical figures. Iblardi (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now going on a tangent, as well as picking and choosing specifics that fit your argument. So I will keep the discussion on Justinian. The issue here is that, by your own admission, because the majority of his empire may have called Justinian by the Greek version of his name and Procopius was a Greek historian writing about Justinian, the Greek version of his name is relevant. At the same time his ethnicity is completely irrelevant. This is by all accounts disingenuous. By your rationale a 3rd generation African-American should be referred to as American without any credence of his ethnicity. RAMerkel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.177.72 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is very little evidence to connect the modern Albanian language with any of the Illyrian languages. To suggest that Justinian was "Albanian" is ludicrous. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact there is substantial linguist evidence to connect the Albanian language with Illyrian. The notion is supported by storied linguists from Hans Krahe, Gottfried Leibniz, Norbert Jokl, WM Leake, and Paul Kretschmer, among others. More over, the article itself states that Justinian was a Latin-speaking Illyrian. To suggest otherwise, as you are, is ludicrous. Credence to his ethnicity is just as appropriate as the credence to the primary sources of information that we have about Justinian. To erase his ethnicity, as you are trying to do, is purely dishonest revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMerkel (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "erase his ethnicity"; the article is clear that he was from Illyria. The point is that this is an English encyclopedia, and the government he headed conducted its business in Latin and (ancient) Greek, and not in modern Albanian. Tb (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The link between Albanian and Illyrian is the subject of current debate. The question is by no means settled, unless you are an Albanian nationalist. The "substantial linguist evidence" you speak is in fact not substantial at all and the linguists you mention are outdated. Our understanding of the ancient Balkans has changed considerably since then, and there are good reasons to believe Albanian is derived from an ancient language other than Illyrian. Please consult the articles on the Albanian language, Illyrian languages and Origin of Albanians before making drawing such conclusions. To suggest that Albanians and Illyrians are one and the same people is very imprudent. Moreover, Justinian was descended from Illyrians that had been thoroughly Romanized and spoke Latin as his native language, not "Albanian". That's why you won't find a single reliable source that calls Justinian "Albanian". Until you find a reliable, modern source that claims Justinian was "Albanian", there is no question of inserting his name in Albanian. Good luck. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - even if it were 100% true and undisputed that Illyrian and Albanian are related and Albanians are descended from Illyrians, it is entirely irrelevant to someone who lived in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms on the linguists I mentioned, modern linguistics is built on their work. Therefore by definition, they can't be outdated. Additionally, the articles you mention (and L.O.C itself) concede a relationship between Illyrian and Albanian. Also, to correct a misstatement of yours, Justinian was Illyrian, not merely "descended from Illyrians". The article on Justinian unequivocally states this. The fact that you are stating otherwise is dishonest revisionism.

By your very argument, Tsourkpk, there is no question of inserting his name in Greek, unless you can establish that Justinian was Greek - which I don't believe you are advocating. The point is if you are going to argue that inserting Justinian's name in Greek is relevant based on our primary source of information on him being in Greek - certainly you are not advocating that the majority of his empire was Greek- then inserting his name in the language that is most similar to the Illyrian language is equally as appropriate (and even more so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMerkel (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason to list the Greek is not because he was Greek, it's because his empire used Greek as its primary language, and all the primary sources are written in Greek. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. Tb (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs)

RE/BE/ERE?

The change from "Eastern Roman Emperor" to "Byzantine Emperor" by the alphabetically challenged 74.72.11.32 (yes, that is his/her WP name :-) in the very first sentence seems gratuitous.

The primary readers of this WP article are, I suspect, not professional historians. Justinian accomplished several notable projects and he represents an important evolutionary figure in his empire's history.

• But to most readers, Justinian is singularly significant for reorganizing Roman law, reconquering the (Mediterranean portions of the) western lands of the Roman Empire, and thereby exporting that law westward.
• He did so from the RE's traditional eastern capital.

So one might sensibly first regard him as an emperor of the RE, or perhaps more precisely of the ERE.

But how does identifying him as "Byzantine" help such readers? To me, this change illuminates very little, and it obscures the most important connection of the time: Justinian thought of himself and his empire as Roman, as did virtually everyone else in both his empire and the reconquered lands. 24.63.96.35 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--79.111.92.19 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect! --deguef (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Which image looks better for the infobox?

Original mosaic image.

Color balanced version of the same mosaic.

Which image looks better in the infobox, original or color balance?

Color balance. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, I am the one who is having problems with the replacement, but I may well change my mind if convincing arguments are given. The exact reason for changing the status quo has never been fully clear to me; I'm not sure what "color balance" is supposed to mean. I myself think the original image should be in the infobox for two reasons:

• The old picture more closely resembles most photographs of the same mosaic I have seen printed in books, which, in my opinion, makes for greater recognizability of the article's subject. At least, this is how it worked for me, and this is perhaps why I am being a little conservative over this.
• To me, the colors of the old picture do seem richer and seem more natural: the face is pink, the background gold (in line with the "Byzantine" splendour which is often referred to), the dress purple. Compared with this, the palet of the new picture, although the photograph itself is sharp, seems to be impoverished, mainly consisting of various shades of two complementary colors: blue and orange (with a general tendency to dissolve into grey - maybe it was underexposed?), making the colors of the new picture look less authentic, both in terms of "natural" colors and of quality of rendering.

Iblardi (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The color-balanced photo looks more like the mosaic looks in real life. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends totally on how much light is on it at the time. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC comment. I am far from an expert on such matters, but of the two I prefer the color-balanced one. The other looks, at least to an ill-informed outsider like myself, almost distractingly garish. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That would not have been the Byzantine view! Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Colour balanced. feydey (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, albeit it looks like he has a mustache. This one looks better. clayjar (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The original is much better. The background is gold leaf applied to glass, not decorator's beige. The cloak is indeed purple, not navy blue, and the centre of the fibula is scarlet not orange. The original may be slightly souped-up, but gives a much better reflection of the effect intended by the artist. The mosaic is very high on a wall, and needed brioght colours to be seen clearly, and to give the effect of magnificence undoubtedly intended. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Having been open for a month, the majority of the people who contributed support the color balanced version. Restored it. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a RfC supposed to be simply a majority decision based on personal preferences? I think that good arguments were given by user:Johnbod showing why the colour-balanced version is inaccurate. Iblardi (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An image somewhere between the two would be ideal. Meanwhile the original should not be deleted from Commons, as often tends to happen. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Provided that it can be used on Wikipedia, what would you think of the alternative proposed by user:clayjar?[1] Here the contrast seems a little on the low side too, with some of the (supposedly) black tesserae being shown in grey, but the overall coloration seems more truthful than that of the 'balanced' picture. Iblardi (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten of this as most of the contributing people supported the current picture, but if the picture suggested can be used, I would have no problems with it. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It apparently comes from here, which means that using it would be incompatible with WP's copyright policies. Thanks for the notice though. Iblardi (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent decline?

The last sentence of the "legacy" section in the article says Justinian's conquests were probably responsible for the subsequent decline. What subsequent decline? The later emperor Maurice solved the two major issues that Justinian faced: Persia and the Balkans. By the end of Maurice's reign, tribute to Persia was no more, and soldiers could be transferred to the Balkans, where the Avars were thrust back across the Danube, only to be attacked by the Romans in their own homeland. I don't think aggressive trans-danubian campaigning could be part of a "subsequent decline". The territories in north Africa that were reconquered during Justinian's time were no doubt of value. The empire by 602 was undoubtedly poised to resume campaigns in Italy - regardless of the destruction of the peninsula during Justinian's time. The "subsequent decline" could only mean the Muslim invasions, which could hardly be attributed to Justinian's policies a century earlier.

any thoughts?

--Tataryn77 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fashionable in recent decades to attribute the Empire's woes in the latter 6th and 7th centuries to Justinian's extravagant policies which, so the argument goes, exhausted the state. And there are several points were Justinian's reign was less than beneficial for Byzantium: Italy was devastated and depopulated, falling easily prey to the Lombards, the immense treasury surplus left by Anastasius was spent, the central field armies dispersed in isolated garrisons around the Mediterranean, the diversion of men and founds west encouraged the Persians to begin what would become almost a century-long series of wars, in which Antioch and many other cities in the East were sacked and huge sums paid for tribute, the depopulation caused by the plague (for which Justinian was certainly not to blame), the rising tension between Chalcedonians and Monophysites, etc. A more conservative ruler would supposedly have focused on defending the borders in the East and the Balkans, leaving the state in a far better shape. In my opinion, these arguments are based too much on hindsight and do not fully take into account the extraordinarily bad luck that the Empire had in the 7th century: the first successful coup in Byzantine history replaces a capable emperor with a paranoid incompetent tyrant, and even after the Empire recovered under Heraclius, the Muslim conquests, a totally unforeseeable event, begin. Nevertheless, it is true that by the end of Justinian's reign, the Empire was pretty much exhausted and overstretched, and it showed in the difficulties of his immediate successors. Constantine ✍ 06:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but what I'm proposing is the question of whether the empire was in a better situation in 565 or 600? Despite the plague, during Justinians era was it not the Persians and Avars who recieved all those "thousands of pounds" of gold? Despite Maurices' stinginess, the remission of tribute to the Persians and the Avars must have counted when it came down to internal stability.

--Tataryn77 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that even asking whether the Empire was "in a better situation" presupposes that we (and modern historians) agree on the criteria. Worse, for our article to suggest that Justinian was unwise (as language such as "fiscal exhaustion" suggests) presupposes that he was applying his judgment according to modern criteria: a "presentist" bias on our part. If the appropriate goal for his time -- as held by the typical Roman citizen (or even emperor) -- was, say, prosperity, or fiscal prudence, or a well-ordered state, we might understand; and we could question his judgment based on subsequent bad outcomes. But if that goal was sovereignty over the 'ancestral' lands of the RE, or imperial grandeur (or even architectural innovation), then he was very successful -- whether or not we in modern times think those should have been the goals of a responsible emperor.

To clarify: I do not know what the recognized goals of his time were, against which we might measure his judgment. Perhaps some editor will enlighten us. But there are much worse things than fiscal exhaustion, such as accomplishing nothing with all that wealth. (Just ask the heirs of Thomas Jefferson.) Jmacwiki (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Justinian has not been surnamed "the Great" by accident. His tremendous energy and the vast array of his accomplishments (and failures, such as in weeding corruption out of the administration, halting the slow decline of the cities, or his policies re Persia) in almost every field make him perhaps the foremost and most critical ruler of Late Antiquity after Constantine I. Modern historians, with hindsight, often condemn his plan for a renovatio imperii and his campaigns of reconquest. In 565 however, it would seem to contemporaries that he had been successful to a great extent in restoring the Empire, at least around the Mediterranean basin. Judging by contemporary standards, and by the aims he had set himself (as far as we can discern them from his proclamations and the comments of contemporary historians), Justinian was rather successful. Nevertheless, we do possess hindsight, and the material exhaustion of the state was a fact directly attributable to his policies, and a fact which undermined his otherwise enormous achievements. The legacy he left his successors with was largely one of imperial overstretch: behind the glittering facade, the edifice was showing rifts.

As an aside, in this respect his reign is very similar to that of Manuel I Komnenos, who was also a magnificent ruler, but who also squandered the Empire's wealth and resources (arguably less prudently than Justinian). In both cases, the state suffered setbacks immediately after the ruler died. It might have recovered eventually, but catastrophic (and unforeseeable) events, the Muslim conquests and the Fourth Crusade, deprived it of that chance. In both cases however, the catalyst for the weakening of the Empire came from within: the murder of Maurice and the 20-odd years of war that followed, and the coups and counter-coups of the Angeloi. Constantine ✍ 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose my original point was not to shed bad light on Justinian, I feel quite the contrary actually. If anything Justinian personified the era and actually "did something" for once. My argument was however against the idea of a "subsequent decline" after his reign - those exact words being used in the article. I firmly stand by the fact that this "decline" did not happen "subsequently", and that Maurice's reign cannot and should not be associated with a "decline". In my points defense I only contrasted Maurice's reign to Justinian's, not meaning to denigrate the latter. My point was that in c.600 during Maurice's reign the Roman Empire was in a far better position in multiple theatres than it had in centuries. When concerning the Persians - a constant Roman threat - the initiative was with the Romans. The peace treaty established by Maurice was his new brother-in-law Khosrau II solidified the eastern frontier. Tribute to the Persians was over. Then on top of such success in the east, Maurice turned the tide against the Avars, crossing the Danube, burning "barbarian" settlements, etc, etc. Tribute to the Avars was over. I believe these two points are sufficient enough to say that Maurice's reign cannot be associated with a decline. Justinian was great, sure, and I believe he established a sort of plateau of dominance which was maintained until Maurice's overthrow. I think I better explained my arguement this time around. --Tataryn77 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in this respect you are certainly correct. Maurice's reign was a very successful period of consolidation, and even of advances against the Persians. As I said in my first post, but for Phocas' usurpation, he would likely have redressed most of the results of the problems left over by Justinian. Constantine ✍ 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure, maybe a slight re-wording of the exact words "subsequent decline" would make sense? I always find that abbreviated history talks about the Muslim invasions after talking about Justinian, shedding negative light on Justinian, as well as over-looking the sort of pinnacle of the Late (Latin) Roman Empire during Maurice's time - taking into account the very friendly relations with Persia, and the vanquishing of the Avars to a degree, concluding the tribulations of the 500's.

I have tweaked that sentence, to soften the (unjustified) implication. Feel free to do more. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A more leisurely question: what do you propose Maurice's next move would have been? Assuming he was a little less stingy and gave the army a little raise? I always thought he'd clean up south of the Danube for a year or two, then move into Italy? The ability to reduce the army on the eastern front to 25% of its earlier levels, would allow a concerted effort to attack the Lombards. Perhaps he would have died anyways (he was old already) before being able to do much? All this is just silly talk of course, but I always find by asking these questions you often understand the situation in those times a little better.--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Always a fascinating avenue of thought. My only contribution, based on very little knowledge of 7th-C. eastern & southern Europe: Would holding Italy (for instance) have "paid for itself"? That is, would the economic production of Italy have been greater than the cost of defending it, and/or would holding it offer a corresponding strategic advantage -- perhaps lowering naval costs greatly, despite some modest extra costs for the army? Jmacwiki (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Italy would not be the most profitable region, especially after the Gothic Wars and the ensuing plague during Justinian's reign. Nevertheless, the ideological importance of Italy cannot be underestimated. Also, with the eastern and northern frontiers of the empire quite secure, there wouldn't have been many other regions for Maurice's armies to campaign in without first securing Italy. Any further consolidation of Africa would require a firm naval presence and control of Italy in most cases, and it seems like Maurice was beginning to accomplish this goal by establishing the Exarchate of Ravenna, which seems to have suceeded in allowing Italian cities to prosper under their own self-interests. Maurice had few other options for expansion north or east, and it seems like west was his only choice. Also, the Lombards would be considered the greatest threat to the empire during Maurice's last years, as the Avars were no longer capable of crossing the lower Danube to plunder the Balkans. In my eyes, the campaign to restore Italy in its entirety would have been a much easier task than turning back the Avar invasions - the Lombards were fractured off the get-go - unable to assemble any army comparable to Maurice's. I'd be surprised if the Lombard duchies in southern Italy could even gather an army of 10,000. Meanwhile Maurice could probably muster at least 35,000 troops for the campaign - considering the entire field army of the empire is said to number around 150,000 at this time - and the majority of the army that was previously on the eastern front was now being brought to the Danube.--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, far be it from me to question holding Italy for purely ideological reasons. I'm the one who [a few exchanges back] argued for evaluating Justinian on just such grounds, instead of conventional, modern ones. But we do seem to be straying from the Talk page guidelines here. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the latter parts of the discussion were all conjecture and "silly talk" as I said earlier, I was just wondering what other people thought about the subject. After all, wikipedia is a good place to find knowledgeable individuals pertaining to whatever subject. I don't think I was straying too far, though, as the article states Maurice intended to place his second son Tiberius as an emperor in Rome. So it would seems that a campaign to restore Rome's security was perhaps in the works--Tataryn77 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Does Wikipedia Gloss Over The Illyrians?

Justinian and fifteen other Roman emperors were Illyrian, including Diocletian and Constantine the Great, yet mention of this and explicit statements which can clarify that they were all born in ILLYRIA (Illyricum) are strictly prohibited here. Dardania: does this ring a bell? The Dardanii were an Illyrian tribe who inhabited much of present-day Kosovo. We mustn’t offend the Serbians and the Greeks, I suppose. Need I remind anyone that there were no Slavs in the Balkans at the time? And the Greeks desire to claim all Byzantine rulers as theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.34.108 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

well, at least according to Norwich he was Thracian, not "Illyrian". I apologize to the Albanian nationalists for this (not that they should care, since the equation Illyrians = Albanians is not accepted by anyone outside Albania) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.221.177 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

justinian

I need help! Please help me with information on justinian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.123.253 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plague of Justinian

Spring, year 540 When the devoted general Belisarius approached Katlanovo, he didn’t have any high expectations. "Plague does not choose either by gender or by merit” - he perplexed himself. When he left his emperor Justinian Prima three months ago, he was half passed on the other side. ...The night they called upon him at the royal Palace he first saw the sovereign as a human being. Dark in the eyes and lips, just as those ill people in the poorest neighbourhoods of Constantinople, his emperor gave him a sign to come closer. “Take me home” – his pallid lips whispered – “If I can get well, the only place it can happen is in Macedonia”…

The road that devoted Belisarius took twice was not a short one at all. But it was nothing compared to how long the path from the bridge over Pcinja to that two-storey edifice over the spa seemed to him. With his helmet off, prepared to take the heaviest of all consignments, the royal crown that he was supposed to return to Constantinople, Belisarius stood in front of the double winged gate. When the heavy shafts moved, the morning sunshine got through on the other side and callously walloped his face. As the gates were widening, thus was his faith in Justinian Prima’s words: “Katlanovo is the fire-pot where the Sun is born, if anything can cure me then it is there, between the Sun and the water.” There, through the rock, the earth and the trees that melted under the morning glimmer, through the water evaporation in which the rock was boiling and the rock in which the water was boiling, he perceived the whole splendour and immaculate masculinity of his master. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus or Justinian Prima, stood in front of him with his arms wide open and a smile saying “Haven’t I told you?!.”