In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity

[Chattus]

I don't know if it's relevant, but Slavic word for "king" comes from his name, and, in its earliest form sounds "korljь". Since Slavs had direct contact with Frankish state, they may hear the name and preserve it, and it sure sounds "Karl" and not "Charles".
Actually I'm a bit amazed that such debate exist, he's always referred as Karl the Great in my native language, and I never thought that anyone, but French use Charlemagne. Things you learned from the forum.

Well, the debate is largely focused on what particular Germanic dialect Charlemagne spoke, so that boils it down quite a bit. From what I can see the contention he spoke Old French as his native tongue seems to be a fringe theory. His biographer Einhard makes mention of his good Latin and moderate Greek though.

 

[volksmarschall]

Do you happen to write textbooks professionally? Your style is plain yet intricate.

Oh heavens no. I don't have the time or the degrees to write or textbooks or even books. Although I do thank you for the compliment! I generally write papers, give or take 15-50 pages depending on the topic. Although I would like to write books after I actually complete a PhD.

Being a historian myself (with a somewhat amateur-ish interest in linguistics) I can safely say that Charles' mother tongue is disputed but it was most certainly Germanic. Most historians seem to claim he spoke a Frankish dialect (not to be confused with Old French) that later evolved into Ripuarian Franconian. In any case "Karl" would be the original name of Charlemagne given phonetic history. The Oaths of Strasbourg for example make extensive use of the name in that particular form both in Old French and Old High German.

Well, it's nice to know that Karl would be the most proper. My philology is most concerned with the "Near East" so the European languages are a secondary concern for me (except Latin and Greek because that is required in Roman/classical studies and the Seminary for that point too). I thought the Germanic name could be proper, only because the Franks were one of the many Germanic tribes, so that all makes sense! Who says you can't learn things on the Paradox Forums?

May I inquire what period of history you work in? I'm guessing it may be this era...

I do wonder what would become of Islam if the ERE had survived. After all, a weak Byzantium did allow the Muslims to spread west into Northern Africa.

Well, Islam would have expanded into N. Africa or the east in Persia anyway regardless of the power of the ERE. The real question is what about the Holy Lands, although history gets one shot so we know what happened. Early Islam was very cosmopolitan and ecumenical anyways (even though these two words I used to describe it are terribly anachronistic), I don't really ponder that question although it would be really really odd if the third great leg of the Abrahamic Faiths never attained the level of power, prestige, and size as it has from our current perspective.

I don't know if it's relevant, but Slavic word for "king" comes from his name, and, in its earliest form sounds "korljь". Since Slavs had direct contact with Frankish state, they may hear the name and preserve it, and it sure sounds "Karl" and not "Charles".

Actually I'm a bit amazed that such debate exist, he's always referred as Karl the Great in my native language, and I never thought that anyone, but French use Charlemagne. Things you learned from the forum.

You know Slavic too! I guess this thread is filled with amateur to professional linguists!

Well, the debate is largely focused on what particular Germanic dialect Charlemagne spoke, so that boils it down quite a bit. From what I can see the contention he spoke Old French as his native tongue seems to be a fringe theory. His biographer Einhard makes mention of his good Latin and moderate Greek though.

I really should read Einhard's "Life of Charlemagne" since he is one of the great primary historians of the period. I'm sure, by your comment, you have read him.

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 2: Crisis and Collapse of the Roman Empire in the West

Chapter 2: Crisis and Collapse of the Roman Empire in the West​

The onset of the Vandals and Hunnic invasions at the sunset of the Roman Empire in the west, coupled with the rise of the newly sedentary former Germanic tribes like the Franks and Visigoths in modern day France and Spain, sapped the political authority of the Western Roman Empire. Rather than a proper stretch of territory that ran from Italy to France to England to Spain and into North Africa, what remained of the central authority of the Roman Empire were pockets of Romanized territories in northern France, Italy, the Adriatic coast, and bits of North Africa, interspersed with territories that were controlled by the Germanic Barbarians but had pledged allegiance to the Roman emperor and Senate in Ravenna – this is principally how the Visigoths had come to the rescue of the empire with the invasion of the Huns.

After the sack of Rome (410) and the various civil wars that erupted in the early fifth century, in addition with the military rivalries between Roman governors and generals ensured that any measured response of the Romans to external and internal threats was nonexistent which only sped up the decay and inability of the empire to respond to the migration crises and Steppe invaders. This is perhaps a harsh rendering as the Romans did manage to form a coalition in time under the leadership of Flavius Aetius to defeat the Huns, but this rare moment doesn’t supersede the fact that the Roman Empire in the fifth century was but a shell of its former self and was met with defeat and retreat on a regular basis. Unable to sustain itself economically or militarily, or even politically – as de facto political power began to transition from the emperor and titular Senate to the Holy See to conduct Roman diplomacy, the Roman Empire was a rump state even before the sack of Rome by Alaric.

The later sacking of Rome by the Vandals was much more devastating and traumatic, particularly because Aetius’s victory over the Huns had restored some sense of Roman pride and patriotism – if not a dangerous triumphalism that would soon come crashing down. It would therefore be incorrect to say that the sackings of Rome caused the collapse of the empire or were driving characteristics in the fall. The sacks simply brought about the hasty collapse of Rome, which, even without the invasions and sacks of Rome, would have likely fallen anyways because of internal struggles, political decentralization, and constant external threats, not to mention a stagnating and contracting economy and widespread hunger and outbreaks of disease.

Any dream that the Romans may have had about a possible restoration were ended with the Sack of Rome in 455 by the Vandals, bringing about the extinguishment of the fabled “flame of Rome,” if there ever was a flame to begin with. As the Vandals marched on Rome, Pope Leo I, the very same man who negotiated to buy time with Attila, met with the Vandals and their chief – Geiseric, and negotiated terms not to sack the city, but how to proceed with the sacking of the city itself. This is not a moment of betrayal by the Pope to the holy city, but an attempt to save the city from its outright destruction. Nothing could have prevented the Vandals from sacking the city, so negotiated to spare parts of the city was the next best option.

Pope Leo I, sometimes called Leo the Great, Pope of the Church during the final decades of the Roman Empire and ironically enough, one if its chief diplomats and politicians.
​

The Roman emperor, a former senator who had essentially purchased the throne and crown of Augustus Caesar with his power, wealth, and scheming – Flavius Petronius Maximus, deserved the judgment rendered unto the city by the Vandals. He had murdered Flavius Aetius, the only man who could have otherwise prevented the sacking of the city for Aetius had the respect of the Visigoths and was the last general to command the authority over what remained of the Roman Army. He also murdered Valentinian III to achieve his place on the throne.

Rather than meet his enemies, he had left the Pope to deal with the Vandals. Rather than stand and fight in defense of the city, he cowered and clothed himself as a slave girl and attempted to flee the city – only to be set upon by an angry mob of Romans who promptly executed him. With no political body left in the city, the Romans threw open the gates of the city and the Vandals entered, promptly beginning a two-week sack of the city.

The sack itself is unknown to historians and archeologists, who argue to the degree of veracity from the sources who record the sacking of the city. What is not under dispute however is the utter destruction of priceless Roman arts, treasures, and spoils of war that were carried off by the Vandals. The Vandals would leave Rome with virtually all the great monuments of Rome.

Pope Leo had instructed that the Vandals not destroy the Christian quarters of the city, any churches, and prohibited the murder or butchering of any people in the city. Some accounts depict the sack as a clean looting of the city. The Vandals tore down great statues and stole the great treasures – from the Jewish Menorah to some supposed Christian artifacts from the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. The Temple of Jupiter was desecrated by the Vandals – the most well-known site not to be spared the wrath of the Vandals, thus the term vandalism entered into language to describe the process of destroying property. Some accounts however do include stories of murder and destruction, but these sources are sketchy at best.

What made this sack worse and more traumatic than Alaric’s sack was the fact that it left the city without a body politic, the wealth of Rome that had been hidden was raptured, and when the Vandals left there was nothing left to the city but homes – the great triumphs, arches, and statues had all been torn down or ruined. The optimism of the Romans that emerged from the victory won over Attila evaporated, and the Roman Empire was now a limp and dying man if there ever was one.

The Sack of Rome by the Vandals, 455. This painting depicts Leo I (at the right) watching the event safely after having negotiated the terms of the sack.
​

In 476, the Germanic-Roman general Odoacer marched on Ravenna with his army to depose Romulus Augustulus, “the Little Emperor.” The last Roman emperor was so unimportant, that when Odoacer arrived in Ravenna Augustus pleaded and wept with him to spare his life. Giving him the crown of Caesar, his throne, and the keys to the last vestiges of the Roman Empire – Odoacer took from Augustulus the keys to the city and exiled him. Exile was a much more benevolent treatment to a Roman emperor than the usual murder during incidents such as this. Augustulus lived out the rest of his life in the countryside, apparently living a peaceful and happy life until his death (a rarity, but it highlights his non-importance to the empire and his authority). Thus, in this moment, the Roman Empire in the west had finally come to an end, at least politically.

Odoacer became the King of Italy, initiating the era of the “barbarian successor kingdoms” that split the Roman Empire among themselves. By now, the eastern half of the Roman Empire was all that was left of the once great empire that had dominated the Mediterranean so thoroughly that it had been known as the Roman Lake. The Byzantines, as they became known as, would experience centuries of decline and revival during their history.

The aforementioned centralized political authority and developed economy and trade routes that benefitted the Eastern Roman Empire will be the next venue of our travels. The logistics of the east ensured the survival of the great empires of Late Antiquity – the Byzantines, Persians, and the Arabs. The fall of the Roman Empire in the West meant that the east would become the new nexus of a Greco-Roman-Persian empire known as the Byzantine Empire, with a greater emphasis and identity among its Greco-Roman heritage than the mostly Persian symbolism that would later influence the empire’s mottos, art and architecture, etc.

Furthermore, as Odoacer became the Rex Italiae, or King of Italy, the other Barbarian kings proclaimed themselves to be the heirs of the Roman tradition, however dubious the claims were. Thus, with the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, whereas the east remained the central development of empire in Late Antiquity, the west became a vacuum of power and politics filled by the successor kingdoms and later by the invading Muslim armies that swept into North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, and Southern France before being turned back, most importantly at the Battle of Tours.

The vacuum of political power ensured that the infrastructure of the Roman Empire, or what remained of it in the west, would slowly decay. Rather than the grandiose architectural, logistical, and military developments in the east, the new west would become a beacon for cultural and philosophical interaction and development. The post-Roman west would also become the seat of the molding of European identity and eventual nation states.

>>> Continue to Part 2: Empires of the East, Chapter 3: Byzantine Survival and Triumph​

 

[ekorovin]

You know Slavic too! I guess this thread is filled with amateur to professional .

No, I don't know Proto-Slavic, it's purely theoretical anyway, the most ancient Slavic language in use currently is Church Slavonic, which itself is a form of Old Slavonic. Of course it is currently only used in liturgy, but since you've expressed interest in Eastern rites you may look into it. It was used by Roman Catholics in Czcheh Republic and Croatia too, but sadly Glagolic rite was abolished in 1960s.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

I think that this is called for:

[video=youtube;Wn_iz8z2AGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_iz8z2AGw[/video]

So long Roman Empire! It was (sort of) nice while it lasted...

 

[tnick0225]

Once again another enlightening update! Definitely learn a bit more every time I read it. Seems the murder of Aetius probably sealed the fate of the West or made it happen more quickly than it may have happened had he lived.

Looking forward to the next volume

 

[Chattus]

May I inquire what period of history you work in? I'm guessing it may be this era...

Oh, I only did a quick research in online journals, because I found it interesting. Given that German universities tend to pay for free access to such stuff it was pretty easy to find. My focus of study is modern history and international relations even though my BA encompassed all epochs. Then again you can't study early modern history without medieval history and you can't study late antiquity without medieval history. It's the ideal place for us to meet.

I really should read Einhard's "Life of Charlemagne" since he is one of the great primary historians of the period. I'm sure, by your comment, you have read him.

Well, we scratched it in a lecture I once heard where we skimmed a bit through it. My Latin is way too rusty though.

 

[c0d5579]

I've read Einhard in English; it shouldn't take you more than an afternoon to get through (about what it ran me, and I had other concerns). Einhard is a fairly standard classic historian (not classical), in that he omits details that don't support his point, and clings rather heavily to his model, in his case Suetonius, but he writes close enough to the period in question that he is a generally reliable source.

 

[volksmarschall]

No, I don't know Proto-Slavic, it's purely theoretical anyway, the most ancient Slavic language in use currently is Church Slavonic, which itself is a form of Old Slavonic. Of course it is currently only used in liturgy, but since you've expressed interest in Eastern rites you may look into it. It was used by Roman Catholics in Czcheh Republic and Croatia too, but sadly Glagolic rite was abolished in 1960s.

Ah, I see. I wonder how one could use their knowledge of Koine Greek to translate to the older Slavic languages, more along the lines of the Cyrillic alphabets that Cyril and Methodius gave them. I had the privilege of listening to Old Church Slavonic once, very beautiful!

So long Roman Empire! It was (sort of) nice while it lasted...

The one truth of world history is that all empires fall... and Rome fell 3 centuries after that so-called "light" had stagnated anyways, so they were do. As Edward Gibbon put it in his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman, we shouldn't be surprised that the empire in the west and east both fell, we should be surprised that they lasted as long as they did! After all, over 500 years in the west and 1,123 years in the east (standard dating of the ERE) is pretty impressive by any measure.

Once again another enlightening update! Definitely learn a bit more every time I read it. Seems the murder of Aetius probably sealed the fate of the West or made it happen more quickly than it may have happened had he lived.

Looking forward to the next volume

If anyone takes away real information from the content of any of my AARs I am happy, since historicity is always at the foundation or on the periphery of all my work just because I can't get away from it now as I'm tied to history until I go 6 feet under...

But with my ongoing devotion to Decline and Fall, and now that I can finally start the project in Victoria 2 that I always wanted to do since I returned, I hope to make this into a light reading and easy going piece. I ended up hoping around with different dynasties for the updates that involve more of the "gameplay history."

Oh, I only did a quick research in online journals, because I found it interesting. Given that German universities tend to pay for free access to such stuff it was pretty easy to find. My focus of study is modern history and international relations even though my BA encompassed all epochs. Then again you can't study early modern history without medieval history and you can't study late antiquity without medieval history. It's the ideal place for us to meet.

You know, I was thinking of a PhD in Early Modern Europe, but since I only know German (since I lost my French I last took 7 years ago), I don't want to relearn (even for just a translation test) another European language. Ancient history is easier since I already have familiarity and competency (although by no means would I in the remotest sense consider myself an expect) in Latin and Greek.

Well, we scratched it in a lecture I once heard where we skimmed a bit through it. My Latin is way too rusty though.

I think I read an brief English translation of Einhard in a Historiography course, about 12 or so pages just to get a feel of Late Antiquity historians. Also read some Bede after Einhard.

I've read Einhard in English; it shouldn't take you more than an afternoon to get through (about what it ran me, and I had other concerns). Einhard is a fairly standard classic historian (not classical), in that he omits details that don't support his point, and clings rather heavily to his model, in his case Suetonius, but he writes close enough to the period in question that he is a generally reliable source.

I'm sure Penguin Classics has him in English. I actually have to read Seutonius this week, along with Herodotus and Tacitus for some work in ancient historiography. Also throwing in Virgil just because I've always loved The Aeneid. My favorite among the "classics."

 

[c0d5579]

Suetonius, Herodotus, and Tacitus in one week? You clearly have more reading time on your hands than I! And yes, I believe my "Two Lives of Charlemagne" is a Penguin Classics edition. If you were doing medieval historiography, I'd say that's a great case study, especially some of Notker's more believable anecdotes.

 

[Tommy4ever]

Excited to see this carry on into the Dark Ages!

 

[volksmarschall]

Suetonius, Herodotus, and Tacitus in one week? You clearly have more reading time on your hands than I! And yes, I believe my "Two Lives of Charlemagne" is a Penguin Classics edition. If you were doing medieval historiography, I'd say that's a great case study, especially some of Notker's more believable anecdotes.

More like a week and a half, than the actual work to correspond with them will probably be another week or so. Twelve Caesars can be a one day read if you just slog through it. I generally stop my historiographical work with the onset of the Middle Ages, primarily just stick with Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity - except for when I write Byzantine historiography which necessarily involves me to enter the medieval era, except the fact all the historians except the primary Byzantine chroniclers are Enlightenment to contemporary historians writing about the them.

Since I have so many books from Penguin Classics, and you seem to have given your version an endorsement, I probably pick it up sometime this summer since, I confess, about 25% of my books are just "because I should have them" not because I've actually read them or plan to read them anytime soon...

Excited to see this carry on into the Dark Ages!

Oh no, you said the term that is not spoken of in my historical framework! Yes, I'm looking forward to almost finally writing about the gameplay instead of just alluding to it in these updates.

 

[volksmarschall]

PART II: THE EMPIRES OF THE EAST

Chapter 3: Byzantine Triumphs and Survival​

It is often mythologized that, when the “light of Rome” was extinguished in 476, if the light of Classical Antiquity was preserved, it was preserved within the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire, which we know as the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire, technically speaking, never existed. The term Byzantine was first applied by German historians in the sixteenth century to separate the longstanding debate among Europeans and Greeks as to who were the proper inheritors of the Roman tradition. Popularized by historians like Montesquieu, Western academics have been using the term “Byzantine” to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire ever since. The Byzantine Empire, in reality, was nothing more than the continuation of the Roman Empire, merging with the traditions of the Greeks and Persians to create a unique culture different from the Latin Romans in the west.

Proper dating for the beginning of the Byzantine Empire is in the year 330 C.E., when Constantine dedicated an old Greek settlement known as Byzantium as Nova Roma, the New Rome, the city later known as Constantinople. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, the burden of the eastern empire was that, despite calling itself Roman and the preserver of the Roman classics, it rarely had control of the city of Rome itself.

After the disastrous Battle of Adrianople in 378 C.E., where the emperor Valens was killed and the Roman destroyed, there was already much doubt to how secure the eastern foundations of the empire were. By the fall of Rome in 476, panic gripped the major Greek cities fearing that the Germanic barbarians would continue their push east into the heart of Greece and overturn Constantinople just as they had done to Rome. This of course, was incorrect and unnecessary hysteria.

The most famous of the Byzantine emperors and empresses are Justinian and Theodora. For this reason, I will start my concentration on the Byzantines here, rather than detail a rather mundane and uninteresting period of 50 years before his rise to emperor in which he embarked on a grand campaign to recapture much of the lost empire.

Justinian was born Flavius Petrus Sabbatius, Anglicized as Peter Sabbatius. His uncle was Justin I, the Byzantine emperor from 518-527, founder of the Justinian Dynasty that lasted just under 100 years. As was common in Roman familial law, Justin adopted Peter as his own, much like how Julius Caesar had done with Octavius which eventually led to the republican civil wars and the formation of the Roman Empire. With the death of Justin, Peter Sabbatius was now next in-line to be emperor. With his ascendency to the throne, who took the titular name Justinian, in honor of his uncle.

A mosaic of the Emperor Justinian I, one of the greatest of the Byzantine emperors, who was nonetheless without his personal moral faults.
​

Justinian was one of those great rulers who is deserving the epithet. Much like how modern day New York City is known by the nickname as “the city that never sleeps,” Justinian’s devotion as emperor earned him the nickname “the emperor that never sleeps.” However, the burden of being Roman emperor but not having the city of Rome under his control was something of a constant thorn in Justinian’s side. More than any heartfelt concern for the possible plight of former Romans living under the successor barbarian kingdoms, Justinian’s war against the western successor kingdoms was more a result of his ego than want to restore Roman order to the former western territories.

You could say of Justinian, he was a man ruled by his inner emotions, a lover of his own ego, and a self-aggrandizer of the highest caliber. His famous co-regent, the empress Theodora, marks another example of Justinian’s narcissistic image and behavior, as does his relationship with his general Belisarius.

Theodora was an actress in Byzantine society. In other words, she was a prostitute and exotic dancer. Sometime before her marriage with Justinian, she converted to Miaphysitism, an eastern non-Chaldean form of Christianity that saw Jesus’s divinity and humanity as one and the same, inseparable under any and all circumstances, which is slightly different than the orthodox (Catholic and Greek Orthodox) view that while Jesus had two natures: human and divine, these two natures were not one and same, but were still united in hypostatic union. After her conversion, Theodora abandoned her role as actress, but Justinian had fallen for her and wanted to marry her.

According to Roman law, it was forbidden that a member of the nobility take someone of such low social class as their spouse. Justinian amended the law to allow himself to marry Theodora. This is not to say that the two were not madly in love with one another, it does seem that the two were genuinely affectionate to each other’s needs and feelings. However, Theodora’s Miaphystic Christianity and Justinian’s Orthodoxy would also play a role in their private battles over the direction of the Eastern Church, since Chaldean Christianity in the east was still in doubt despite the Greek Orthodox Church’s approval of the council. If there ever was a pair who truly epitomized the saying opposites attract, it would be Justinian and Theodora.

A mosaic of the Empress Theodora, a former actress who became the most powerful woman, if not the most powerful person in the empire during her life and marriage with Justinian.
​

Justinian’s foreign policy was concentrated by his endeavor to reclaim as much of the western empire as possible. For this, he employed his faithful servant and great captain of the armies Belisarius, known as the “Last of the Romans” for his skill and prowess on the battlefield and in politics. Belisarius was tasked with the seemingly impossible task to destroy the Vandal Kingdom, which encompassed Sicily, Sardinia, and North Africa. Outnumbered 5-1 in the campaigns, Belisarius showed his skill and cunning in a swift victorious campaign against the Vandal Kingdom.

At the Battle of Tricamarum, where Belisarius’s army which numbered less than 15,000 soldiers met the Vandal Army of nearly 50,000 soldiers, Belisarius scored one of the most improbable victories in Roman history. Crushing the Vandal army and causing it to flee the battlefield with minimal losses to his own command, Belisarius in one swift swing had destroyed the formerly invincible Vandals. Geilamir, King of the Vandals, fled into Numidia. Belisarius marched into Hippo Regius, a former Roman city which welcomed Belisarius and his army with open arms. Realizing his kingdom was lost, Geilamir, would surrender to Belisarius in the hills of North Africa.

The victory over the Vandals was important as it allotted for the buildup of Byzantine forces for the invasion of Italy, and the eventual conquest of the city of Rome during the Gothic Wars, which would dominate most of Justinian’s reign as emperor. The defeat of the Vandals also threatened Justinian’s position, at least in his own mind. Belisarius, who never had any other intention than to serve his emperor faithfully, was building popularity among the Roman commoners that Justinian would later come to see as threat, especially after his capture of Rome.

In the halls of Roman military campaigns, few campaigns are as remembered as Scipio’s defeat of the Carthaginians, Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, and Belisarius’s conquest of the Ostrogoths in Italy. Even though the wars would last for two decades, and end with Belisarius’s sacking and exile, the victories won by Belisarius for Justinian increased the empire’s territory to new heights. Like with his campaigns against the Vandals, Belisarius was generally outnumbered but won great victories over the Goths, ended with the capture of Rome itself!

Belisarius’s march on Rome is the story of legends. Storming out of Sicily, Belisarius sacked Naples causing the Ostrogothic King Vitiges to flee north to the old imperial stronghold of Ravenna. A small army of about 6,000 men accompanied Belisarius to Rome, which promptly opened its gates in jubilation to the arrival of Belisarius and the Byzantine Army. Belisarius promptly knew the severity of his position, unable to pursue the Goths north to Ravenna; he began to fortify Rome in preparation for a counterattack. A Gothic army of about 50,000 men returned to lay siege to Rome, which was lightly defended but the Byzantine defenses prompted a Thermopylae like engagement. The Gothic attack concentrated around the Mausoleum of Hadrian, a great temple named after the emperor Hadrian. The Goths were repelled after fierce fighting, suffering thousands of casualties. The Byzantines counterattacked but were repulsed by the Gothic cavalry, resulting in another prolonged siege of the city walls, which ended with Byzantine reinforcements aiding the defenders. Tired, the Goths retired to the Milvian Bridge where Belisarius enticed an attack on his weaker forces, but just like with Constantine’s victory over Maxentius, the Goths were routed and in retreat, many drowned in the Tiber River.

An episode of Belisarius's early campaigns against the Barbarian successor kingdoms of the west. This particular depiction is probably from one of his campaigns against the Vandals.
​

Belisarius’s victories in Italy made him an enemy to Justinian, who recalled him and imprisoned him. Belisarius’s wife had to court Justinian to grant him pardon, at which point Belisarius was freed and he continued to live out the rest of his as a noble Roman with the accolades and honors he rightly deserved. Justinian’s irrational decision to imprison his greatest general was the fact that Justinian was constantly paranoid of plots against him. His wife Theodora operated one of the greatest spy rings in human history, and enemies of the emperor and empress were constantly imprisoned with pardon, without due process, and were left to rot in hidden prisons until they died from malnutrition.

After defeating the Goths, Italy, much of North Africa, and parts of Southern Spain had been added to the empire of Justinian. The Byzantine Empire, geographically, had never been larger. Although conquest had dominated much of Justinian’s reign, Justinian was also a great administrator and reformer. A believer in the Church’s doctrine of social justice, Justinian would embark on a crusade to ease the burden of Byzantine law and improve the tax systems within the empire. Justinian maintained the benevolent policy of, “Taxes should be raised least oppressive to those who pay them.” [1].

>>> Continue​

[1] Charles C.W. Oman, The Byzantine Empire (1898), p. 72.

 

[ekorovin]

It's tough to see anything on that last picture but the hairstyles of those vile barbarians looks a bit Slavic to me. And Belisaurius did fought with Slavs in the Balkans, so it figures.

Then again of course this picture is probably complete XIX century fantasy, so there's that.

By the way, after Italian campaigns Belisarius wasn't imprisoned, he was sent to Persian front, where situation was far less favorable for Romans, and only after fighting Persians to standstill, paying them a large contribution and signing a 5 years truce with them, hу was sent to exile. But then returned to participate in campaigns against Slavs and Bulghars who were ravaging Balkans all the way to Constantinople.

Also, you're demonizing Justinian a bit. Sure, Belisarius was imprisoned, but not for treason, for corruption, and I, frankly, don't think there's one military commander in a history of time who was completely clean in that sense. He spent some time in prison, was pardoned and lived in luxury ever since.

 

[volksmarschall]

It's tough to see anything on that last picture but the hairstyles of those vile barbarians looks a bit Slavic to me. And Belisaurius did fought with Slavs in the Balkans, so it figures.

Then again of course this picture is probably complete XIX century fantasy, so there's that.

By the way, after Italian campaigns Belisarius wasn't imprisoned, he was sent to Persian front, where situation was far less favorable for Romans, and only after fighting Persians to standstill, paying them a large contribution and signing a 5 years truce with them, h[e] was sent to exile. But then returned to participate in campaigns against Slavs and Bulghars who were ravaging Balkans all the way to Constantinople.

Also, you're demonizing Justinian a bit. Sure, Belisarius was imprisoned, but not for treason, for corruption, and I, frankly, don't think there's one military commander in a history of time who was completely clean in that sense. He spent some time in prison, was pardoned and lived in luxury ever since.

The picture is certainly a fantasy, the caption from which it was pulled reads it was from the Vandal Wars, but no one really knows for sure. Naturally, I'm forced to skip a lot of material and you're right, Belisarius was sent east but that is unimportant to the continuity of the quick storyline. But Belisarius was later imprisoned by Justinian as you note which has always been focal of historians between Justinian and Belisarius.

I'm not sure where you got treason from? I never stated he was imprisoned for that. Corruption was the drop charged laid on him, but every biographer of Justinian and Belisarius I've read said Justinian was always suspicious of Belisarius popularity which is, from my POV and almost all of biographers POVs, the true motivation of Justinian to have Belisarius arrested was fear that Belisarius posed a threat to Justinian's reign which I just repeated (I presume that's where the possible inference of treason came from?). The principal source material I've used for this abridged intro to Justinian and Theodora and Belisarius is Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Ian Hughes Belisarius, and Lars Brownworth's Lost to the West. I'm also curious to know why you think my writing has "demonized" Justinian, I just highlighted some of his better and worse qualities at the same time. After all - he did lower taxes to try and make life easier on the peasants. I also state he was great administrator and reformer. But he was paranoid and suspicious of the activities of his generals, I've never read someone who said otherwise.

 

[ekorovin]

Oh, OK, I don't know where I got treason charge from.

I'm holding my breath for the time you'll get to Heraclius.

 

[volksmarschall]

Oh, OK, I don't know where I got treason charge from.

I'm holding my breath for the time you'll get to Heraclius.

Actually, it's probably the fault of the word choice I used. Re-reading it, I could definitely understand how someone could imply he was arrested and tried for treason on the grounds that I note that (as historians, we believe), that Justinian's real motivations were to protect his throne from perceived (incorrect) beliefs that Belisarius could have usurped. After all, as you kindly note, all Belisarius ever did was faithfully serve the empire throughout his life.

As for the great Heraclius, I don't think I'll cover him as much as I just did for Justinian. I really want to get to the gameplay, although I think I could work Heraclius in when I start writing about the Arabs and the Muslims or perhaps the Sassanids, since he historic dealings with them.

BTW, are you not continuing your Fall of the House of Rurik project?

 

[ekorovin]

I think the corruption charge itself is a circumstantial evidence that Belisarius wasn't contemplating treason. It's Byzantium, where the rumor that you saw a dream about purple vestiges is an evidence enough for treason charge, and yet, Belisarius is not charged with it. So, probably Justinian understood that it won't stand.

As per Rurikid AAR, I don't know. I want to write it, but it probably won't happen until 21 of June, I'm planning to go on vacation.

 

[Pezito]

Interesting AAR.I wonder,what if the Plague of Justinian never happened?

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Great images! If I may ask, where do you get them?