Talk:Justinian I
|
|
An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).
Contemporary historians tell us that Justinian dominated his uncle.
I know Procopius says this. Do any others?
- dunno. Maybe not. I'm not a Byzantinist. I knew that Procopius did, but I was hedging. --MichaelTinkler
Ok. It's just that not everything Procopius says can be taken at face value, notably the secret histories, as he obviously had a personal grudge against the family.
- Indeed. The phrase 'contemporary historians' makes a nice introductory statement for later qualification, I thought. Of course, Procopius *might* be right and he might have been possessed by a demon. --MichaelTinkler.
I think it's nonsense. Justin was smart enough to scheme his way into the throne when he was about 83 years old, I can't see him then being kicked around by his nephew. Procopius didn't like Justin, Justinian or anything about them, and I take his comments about Justin as just one more expression of that.
Justinian wasn't even named as Justin's successor until Justin was in the last year of his life, and Justin's policies were nothing like his nephew's. He may have relied on Justinian's skills a great deal, but I'm convinced Justin was the real emperor until he died. John
- Well, those same contemporary historians would contend that Justinian was also responsible for putting his uncle on the throne in the first place. G. P. Baker in *Justinian* (1931) holds that Justinian did manipulate much of his uncle's reign.
- Also to be specified: the (mere) "university" Justinian closed in Athens was Plato's Academy.
Justinian is mainly remembered for his judicial revolution which organised Roman law in a form and organic scheme that is still in use today and remains more or less unaltered in some countries today (apart from obvious adaptations).
Is this really true? I know this is the most important thing Justinian did, but I would expect people to remember him more for the reconquest of the west, since it's more dramatic, shows up on maps, and is a necessary part of the narrative of events in Italy.
No mention of the Plague of Justinian? I would think that it had major lasting effects on the Eastern Empire, and we do know that Justinian made policies to deal with it. Sadly, I know not to where my copy of Charles Panati's Extraordinary Endings of Practically Everything and Everybody has disappeared; it treats the plague extensively.
- Well...that's probably not the best source to use for the plague. But we do have a Plague of Justinian article, I thought it was linked from here. Adam Bishop 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)