Talk:Justinian I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tzar Upravda

Hi All,

I have editted the page to include Slav name of Justinian (Sv. Tzar Upravda). Why it was removed from the page?

old talk

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.

old talk

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.

old talk

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)

Justin I

Sorry, saw "Uncle Justin" and thought it was Dukes of Hazzard or somthing. Stbalbach 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

Sorry, I meant to put in the history comment of my recent edit to the picture caption that I was removing POV that the mosaic is Byzantine in nature. I personally agree with a very convincing Discovery Channel documentary called "Barbarians" that put forward that the figure in the mosaic looks exactly the same as coins depicting Theodoric, and the label "IVSTINIAN" was added later. I haven't read the whole article, but I would guess from this that it's still filled with POV. elvenscout742 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest we find a more authoritative source for that than some Discovery Channel documentary. What was the basis of their claim? They thought little images on coins kind of maybe sort of looked like a really big mosaic image? And why is it POV to suggest the mosaics are Byzantine, even if they do depict Theodosius? What style would he have been using, if not Roman/Byzantine? Adam Bishop 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly represent it well. We know that Roman historians were incredibly biased against "barbarians", and so would try to exterminate any trace of civilized Gothic culture if they found it. The strange disembodied hands on some mosaics, as well as the fact that the crown, the "IVSTINIAN" label and anything else that would make them explicitly Byzantine were added later, as well as explicit Gothic elements removed. I am not saying it's POV to say that they may have been Byzantine, but that reference was naively assuming that they were Byzantine. I merely said that some historians contend that it depicts Theodoric, and removed the word "Byzantine" from the label, as it explicitly supported the POV that those historians are wrong. elvenscout742 09:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I was not talking about Theodosius I. I was talking about Theodoric the Great (who, I might add, was also an Arian Christian, rather than a Roman Catholic ... he certainly shouldn't be allowed get away with that >: ( ). elvenscout742 09:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a larger pic commons:Justinian_mosaik_ravenna.jpg. There is actually no label saying "IVSTINIAN". But I've never heard anyone claim that it was someone else. Did the documentaty say who the woman on the other wall could be? commons:Image:Theodora mosaik ravenna.jpg. -- Jniemenmaa 12:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The only person labelled in the San Vitale imperial mosaics is Maximianus, the Archbishop of Ravenna who was the patron of the mosaic work. As he was Catholic, he'd hardly be associated with the Arian Theoderic. Furthermore, if there was a label attached to the emperor, it should read IVSTINIANVS, not the Anglicised version presented above. The argument recalled by Elvenscout742 seems to be built on unproven possibilities and lacks any evidence. I've never read that these mosaics are anything other than Justinian and Theodora, which is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. It would be more NPOV to report any doubts in a paragraph on the San Vitale page rather than doctoring image captions in this article. Reporting scholarly consensus (in what is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for debating historical theory and fact) is hardly POV.--Iacobus 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Justinian, Justinianus, Ιουστινιανός

Just a small note. The different names in the introduction are quite chaotic:

• Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus is the Latin full name,
• Μέγας Ιουστινιανός means Justinian the Great, cf. Alexander the Great = Megas Alexandros,
• Justinian is a modern/modernised version.

The Latin version of Justinian is Iustinianus, the Greek one ist Ιουστινιανός/Justinianos.

I agree.--BlaiseMuhaddib 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact check

Fact check

Justinian Article: Justinian would have, in earlier times, been unable to marry her because of her class, but his uncle Emperor Justin I had passed a law allowing intermarriage between social classes.

Theodora article: She convinced Justinian to change the law that forbade noblemen to marry lower class women (like herself).

Justinian did not change that particular law. His uncle Justin also married a woman of disputable origin. His wife Euphemia was born a slave. See: Euphemia. This was before even rising to the throne. The problem was that Theodora was a former actress which at the time made her a subject to laws denying members of this class many rights common to other citizens. User:Dimadick

Justinian article: He is also known as "The last Roman Emperor" [citation needed]"

Known by whom? Although he is sometimes referred to in more or less those words, I'm not sure if it really deserves being mentioned here, especially as a direct quote. However, I do remember having read him being called "the last of the Roman Caesars" or something like that. Maybe Gibbon, or just some popular history book? Iblardi 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

"Justinian viewed himself as the new Constantine. He believed in a Mediterranean-wide Christian order politically, religiously and economically, united and ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes."

A source reference would be in place here. Of course, as a Christian Roman Emperor, he was supposed to be the political head of the Christian world, but how much is really known about Justinian's motivations? Iblardi 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Caričin Grad

I have put Caričin Grad as Justinian's birth place according to: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Edited by Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press 2005, p. 355 (with figure of Justiniana Prima = Caričin Grad on p. 356). ClaudiusGothicus 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I reverted your edit before seeing this, I will restore it, and add the source. --- Stbalbach 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Illyrium?

This was just added:

Justinian was a Latinized [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonian]] peasant <ref> William George DeBurgh, 1953, “The Legacy of the Ancient World” - Penguin Books, p.421 ''Justinian'' </ref>

Which replaced/deleted text that said he was born in the Illyricum Province. I had always read the Justinian was an Illyrian. Is this not true? Was there a Macedonian Roman provence? -- Stbalbach 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording, too. You can't say Justinian himself was a Latinized person, his whole family just came from a Latin-speaking region. Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good information on Justinian

Wouldn't it be a good idea to use this site: http://www.roman-emperors.org/ as a source of information on Justinian and other Roman emperors? (http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm for Justinian) It looks thorough and reliable and has lots of primary and secondary sources listed.Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Great"

Hi, I was just wondering if there should not be a reference to the epithet often used with Justinian, "the Great". Whether or not this is a modern tag (I'm not really sure), it's certainly a relevant and popular identifier (it's the name by which I knew Justinian as a child). The last article edit that described "the Great" as vandalism is a bit of a stretch, particularly without an explanation. Also, new Wikipedians are just going to keep adding the epithet whenever they see it is not in the article. Just a thought. Rob Lindsey 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless its how the person is most commonly known as it's not part of the article title, and thus not in bold text. I suppose a case could be made that he is most commonly known as "the Great", but I think it would be controversial (not if he was "great" or not, but that "great" is most commonly attached to his name). I can say personally that in my studies from recent secondary sources he was not called "the great", but I understand there is a line of tradition that has done so. -- Stbalbach 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the World Book Encyclopedia for the Year 2000, 2001, and 2002, they refer to him as (The Great) after his name, in bold. Thus, I think that is what it should be changed too, so long as it stays in parentheses.Will 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow World Book Encyclopedia conventions. -- Stbalbach 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I propose (and have edited) the top of the article to "or as he is known in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, St. Justinian the Great." Being an Orthodox christian, that is what he is always called in church, so I think it should stand separate from his main secular title. -- Will 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the article is biased

The article is biased against the Emperor, with words like "despotic" all over the body of the text.

See despotism. I believe this is being used in the non-pejorative sense? -- Stbalbach 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another bias: the following text

He achieved what no other Byzantine Emperor had before or ever would again after him, the reconquering of the city of Rome itself. Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era.

is clearly a discourse lapsus that deteriorates the text to ridicule - if he had succeeded, then it hadn't been a "concept of a bygone era" - but now he failed, and we're proving that he could do nothing than fail by observing that he failed. That's a circular "proof". Or else we claim that concepts rule the universe, not matter and consequences of acts - how then do we observe those concepts?? Something must be done against this big frog! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never again after him? See History of Rome. His successors continued to hold the city of Rome until hostilities started between Leo III the Isaurian and Pope Gregory III in 731. Gregory was the last to have his election confirmed by the Exarch of Ravenna. He then sought a "new protector" in Charles Martel during 739. Justinian was far from the last Byzantine Emperor to hold the city. User:Dimadick

You are both right, the comment is not in place here. Iblardi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Slav connection

To Stbalbach and others, I removed a comment on Justinian being "by no means" of Slav origin, because it seemed to me irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. First of all, it looks rather polemical to put it that strongly, but that may be a matter of style. But more importantly, why so much attention for a "romantic tradition" that doesn't seem to be very wide-spread at all? I myself have never heard of it, and though I'm by no means a specialist, I don't consider myself completely uninformed. The Slavs entered the Balkans in any great numbers some time after 500 anyway, so there is no obvious reason to think Justinian was a Slav. (Personally I don't really care about his ethnicity.) Why state the obvious? This would be like saying "Alexander was not of Persian descent at all" in an article on Alexander the Great because there are some Persian legends that claim he was. That was my motivation. With regards, Iblardi 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is notable enough to include. It is historiography and every history article on Wikipedia should have more of it. In this particular case, there is a lot of racist and nationalistic scholarship out there that needs to be corrected and Wikipedia does a pretty good job at that. I suspect the reason you never heard of it is your not exposed to that kind of scholarship, which is a good thing, but take a look at Huns for example (origins section) and the article talk page to see how various countries nationalistic and/or racists agendas often make claims on history. Or Goths. Or Ancient Egyptians. etc.. -- Stbalbach 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it could be included in the form of a footnote then. I think some people's nationalistic claims don't deserve so prominent a place in an article that is supposed to merely reflect the scientific consensus. When I look up 'Justinian' in any encyclopedia, I find no references to this 'discussion'. If anything, it should be put in a separate section "Romantic traditions on Justinian's ethnicity" or something like that, or even a separate article on racist/nationalistic 'scholarship', linking to the encyclopedical pages. Iblardi 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah it's fine and normal to deal with historiography issues this way in history articles. -- Stbalbach 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as it reflects serious historiography issues, not some uninformed or politically-inspired opinion. Why is this opinion so important that it should be dealt with so explicitly in an otherwise very general section? We could refer to every pseudo-scientific 19th-century tradition, however marginal, in every article, stating those theories are absolutely wrong. For instance, in an article about the Solar system, would you expect to find a comment like "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun" otherwise than in a separate section on "historical misconceptions" or the like? I still think a case can be made for mentioning it, but not here. The fact that he was born in the Balkans before the Slavs entered should speak for itself. Iblardi 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ilbardi here. I have never come across any statements that he is a Slav, and I have been reading up on Justinian pretty well. Who claims he is a Slav, then? Which Romanticist said so? Certainly not the Romantic School of Paris. Maybe it is something for a footnote, if you would find a source. Until then, I'd suggest removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Belle Aude (talk -- La Belle Aude 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Burial?

Hi, is the place of J and Theodora's burial still existant? Are their bodies still where they were placed all that time ago? Or did something bad happen? This isn't discussed anywhere and I can't find any information on findagrave.com. Thanks! PatrickJ83 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Byzantine emperors were buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was demolished by the Ottomans after 1453. Iblardi 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well that's depressing - what happened to the bodies? Have their ever been archeo. expeditions - or were the bodies moved? PatrickJ83 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The bodies themselves seem to have disappeared completely. As far as the tombs are concerned, this is what I found:

'The once long and splendid series of Byzantine imperial tombs is represented for most visitors to Istanbul by four immense porphyry sarcophagi which stand in the courtyard in front of the Museum of Antiquities. They are not the total of those known to exist. A fragment of the side of another and two fragments of a lid are preserved in the museum itself, and there are two in the church of St. Irene and one in the yard of the mosque Nuruosmaniye. A French traveller in the eighteenth century saw in the grounds of the Seraglio three further sarcophagi or parts of sarcophagi - two of porphyry and the lid of another made of verd antique - which have since disappeared. Their identity is not in doubt, though the gold and precious ornaments that once adorned them were sent to the melting pot in 1196 by Alexius III and none of them is accompanied by any imperial inscription or epitaph. Porphyry was too costly a material and too hard to work for sarcophagi of such size to have belonged to lesser persons, and there is an exact correspondence between the number actually surviving plus the two discovered in the eighteenth century and that of the imperial sarcophagi described by the written sources as being of porphyry. The remaining tombs in the inferior grades of marble - green Thessalian, white Proconnesian, variegated Sagarian, and so forth - with which the emperors had to content themselves when porphyry was no longer available cannot at present be identified.' (P. Grierson, "The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042)," Dumbarton Oaks Collection 16 (1962) 3-60, p. 3)

So, at least nine tombs should still be more or less intact, assuming that nothing has happened to them in the meantime and that they are really imperial tombs, as indicated by the fact they are made of porphyry. I couldn't find anything more recent than this article, which is pretty old. Anyone who has better information on the subject is invited to share it here :) Iblardi 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised Military activities

I have made some modifications in the section "Military activities". I'll give some examples why I thought the old version was inadequate.

A) In general:
- Too little information on the Persian wars as compared to the West.
- Too much mentioning of Belisarius and too much written from his POV. He has an article of his own.

B) On sentence level:
- "Like his Roman predecessors and Byzantine successors" - This implies Justinian is the one 'last Roman emperor'. No general agreement on that.
- "However, his primary military ambitions focused on the western Mediterranean Sea" - An assumption is made about J’s ambitions (although admittedly a plausible one). Why not let the facts speak for themselves?
- "as a reward after successfully putting down the Nika riots" - How do we know?

I expanded the text in some places and cut it short in others and have, in general, tried to make it more balanced. Iblardi 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Succession and child(ren)

In an article on an emperor or king one normally expects to find some mention of any children and of the matter of succession. I wonder if this could be added? Norvo 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it in the 'Life' section. The whole article is in need of serious revision anyway. Iblardi 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Justian on Suppression of Homosexuality

While the article covers the suppression of Hellenism, missing is the criminalisation of homosexual acts, apparently based on the grounds that 'they cause earthquakes'. A reference is made in the Wiki article on pederasty, as practised by Classical and Ancient Greece.[1]

I've only a secondary source: Gore Vidal, United States, Abacus, 1993, pp 531, 922-23,1051.

As sexual politics are fundamental to understanding a culture and the individuals within it, I think it's worth a mention. If no one can find a better source, I'll put it in myself. --TresRoque 12:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a better source than Vidal who is a great 20th C American playwright, author, statesman etc.. (and who is openly homosexual) -- something from a neutral mainstream historical source would be great. -- Stbalbach 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Justinian did issue a couple of Novellae concerning homosexuality, and there is some legislation against it in the Institutiones. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/just-novels.html (The earthquakes make their appearance in Novella 77.) These laws are also mentioned in John Moorhead's Justinian, London/NY 1994, pp. 36 and 37. Iblardi 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Iblardi would you feel confident to get IP-checked? Miskin 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. In the meantime I'd like to hear from you a motivation for reverting this section other than the single fact that one of its contributors apparently has been banned. Iblardi 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was POV on those edits. However, I'm only reverting per WP:BAN:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

Miskin 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointing at some general rule can be an easy excuse and it actually sounds kind of technocratic. Deleting whole sections of articles without giving a proper motivation is kind of annoying. This section of the article has existed for quite some time without anyone taking offense, although this page has been quite critically watched in the meantime. I for myself have seen no blatantly POV statements, at least not any more than in other articles. So examples please.

O, and just to make sure, I don't know the user who is involved in all of this. I hope that is understood. Iblardi 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, read the lines I quoted - it's WP:POLICY not just "some general rule", and it says that I don't need to provide an example. Oh I'm sure you don't know him alright. Miskin 09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to show some good faith, I'll bring up one argument: The user's edits are unreferenced, they provide an opinion and then a second personal opinion within ref tags, fooling people into thinking that there's actually a reference. Furthermore that's not why I've been reverting. As WP:BAN states, "the banned user is not authorised to make those edits", therefore those edits have to be removed so that a banned user will understand that he's not wecome here anymore and refrain from making sockpuppets - it's got nothing to do with content. With that simple policy and the bad quality of the edits in mind, I honestly can't imagine why a "neutral" editor would insist in keeping those edits back on (with just a poor justification). Personally I'm convinced that you are Greier's sockpuppet, and you're not doing a good work to hide it. In fact you just can't help it, hence why you were banned in the first place. Miskin 09:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mainly restating what you said the last time. Again, I would like you to give me some concrete examples of what you mean. Lots of Wikipedia articles fail to show a proper source, and there is a special tag for that, it says "citation needed". I wonder why it is (apparently) unacceptable to say that Justinian was either from this or that place, but not, for instance, that he was from a "Latinized family". ("Latinized" by whom? In what respect? How does one "Latinize" a family?) But if it's only the fact that this user has been banned, would it be OK with you then if I would rephrase the section so that its contents match the old version, before your revert?

By the way, please refrain from getting personal. As I said, I don't know the user involved. If you want to check my IP, go ahead. Other people's opinions may be different from your own, you see? Iblardi 13:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

O well, I've decided to drop the matter and do some constructive work instead. Revert wars are silly. Iblardi 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So suddenly you decided to "drop the matter", after all those were never your edits right? I don't really care about the content of those edits, it's just that I truly believe that you're another sockpuppet of Geiger, and therefore there is a biased motivation behind your edits by definition. Even if your IP doesn't match, there are other ways to blow the cover of a sockpuppet. Then all your efforts will be in vain, for I'll revert every single edit you've made in wikipedia, until you realise that you're not welcome here anymore. So think twice before making more edits, you might just be wasting your time. Miskin 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, as soon as you "dropped the subject", an anon decided to "update" the section by rephrasing Geiger's version. Too many coincidences indeed. Miskin 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at the edit of this page at 18:55 today, where I actually admitted it was a mistake; I forgot to logon. However, since I really don't want everyone on the web to see my IP, I decided to delete it.

Now that I read the rest of your story, you come across as being very, very paranoid on this issue. Your constant accusations are starting to annoy me at this point. Iblardi 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

After you have convinced yourself of the fact that I'm not the person you think I am, I suggest we just delete this whole stupid discussion. Agreed? Iblardi 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to delete the discussion. Miskin 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you still convinced that I am that banned user or not? I don't like to have a reference to my IP exposed on a discussion page, so I'd like to delete this whole discussion, you see. Iblardi 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody will expose your IP in any page, don't worry about that. Though I don't see what would that change since you just admitted that you edited as an anon. Miskin 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for your sake, darn it! I am wondering why I am even trying to convince you, it must be the fact that I feel insulted by your stream of agressive comments towards me, or rather the person you think to know I am. I am just a guy from Holland who happens to disagree with you.

Deleting this discussion will just 'cloak' my IP a little better, so if you don't mind, I'll delete it within the coming 24 hours. Hell, I even took the trouble to post a message on your homepage. Now I've got to cool down a little. Jeez, I'm playing straight here. You are incredible, man. Iblardi 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

Please, please, PLEASE do not randomly change back sections of this article. Greier, whom I stress I don't know, may have been banned, but the version you deleted contained some good factual information. Try to keep Iblardi and the Justinian article out of your personal crusades, whatever they may be, and allow other users to contribute. What you are doing right now amounts to vandalism, and you're really getting on my nerves. Your behaviour strikes me as childish. Iblardi 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rest of the discussion here: [[2]] Iblardi 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed ambiguous and useless statements and replaced them with useful information (and sources). What's the matter, I thought you had "dropped" the subject. Miskin 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU keep bringing it up!!!!!! I agreed with a previous version of the section, restored it twice (or so), then rewrote it completely. I have been very patient with you for a long time, but now I'm getting convinced you are really a troll. Since you keep restoring outdated versions robotically, I have to assume you are uninterested in Wikipedia as such, but rather pursuing secondary goals. You are not contributing anything to the encyclopedia. You are not giving me any credit, I won't give you any. I'm through with it. Iblardi 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed on dropping the subject, so you can't blame me for bringing it up. I consider WP:BAN a very important policy and I intend to enforce it. It was you who claimed in public that you would "drop the subject", but apparently it was all a show. Miskin 14:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that I have made you involve me in a flame war like this. I did drop the subject, that is, the discussion over reverting/not reverting, and decided to rewrite the section. And don't talk to me about it being "all a show". It's you that gets personal all the time. Iblardi 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, one more time, take the trouble to assume good faith (this is important) and re-read all of my edits. Sometimes things are not as they appear, especially when many people and many points of view are involved. What looks suspicious to you may just be coincidence. You are wasting your time, I am not the guy you are after. Iblardi 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true then you have nothing to be afraid of. Although I think it's too late for that. Miskin 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. "Prove to me that you didn't do it!" Nice tenet to go by. I told you about the IP thing, but obviously, you are not one to be convinced in any way. Iblardi 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You remind me of those users that keep turning up in internet fora and add random provocative comments in order to disrupt discussions. It's never about the subject matter; their sole purpose is to piss off other people. I think your hate-mongering is meant as a provocation and you yourself may very well be the one that is a sock puppet. Iblardi 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

It appears over the past few weeks that various editors .. anons, red editors, etc.. keep deleting, changing and adding and deleting etc.. very well cited material in a low-grade on-going edit war without much discussion. There appear to be multiple points of view from cited sources that are not being fully represented - one cited view gets added by one person, then deleted by another, then re-added by a third, then deleted by a fourth, etc... Until this is resolved, when ALL cited views are represented in the article, it needs to be flagged as disputed. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

At least one anon is in fact myself having forgotten to log on. I don't know what exactly the problem is regarding the contents, but it all seems to have something to do with the first part of the 'Life'-section. In order to start with a clean slate, I tried to rewrite it and included references to Moorhead's study, which is of course not the ultimate source on Justinian (as he admits himself), but at least the book is peer-reviewed and the references are verifiable. I understand your reasons for placing the tag though. Iblardi 13:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach have a look at the section "Reverted edits" I just restored (User:Iblardi was trying to hide it), and I think you'll realise what's going on. I reverted per WP:BAN and per WP:CITE some edits made by sockpuppet User:Mursili, and Iblardi has been edit-warring to keep them back on - ignoring WP:POLICY on the matter. Although he claimed that the matter was "dropped", he keeps reverting them. Having past experience with User:Greier, I'm convinced that User:Iblardi is one of his sockpuppets, i.e. the person that made those edits in the first place. Miskin 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi do _NOT_ remove anymore edits from this page. Miskin 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed a link to this discussion in the other section. I am not trying to hide anything, except that I referred to my own IP number being exposed in the edit history in order to convince you of my good intentions, then deleted the section. Your initial reversions had nothing to do with the content of the article but were just a part of an apparent obsession-like flame war you seem to have. I know it sounds pityful to admit it, but I'm trembling with anger behind my computer right now. This is the world turned upside down. I repeat: my intentions are sincere and I am not Greier! Iblardi 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how a neutral editor would be obsessing over this. I'm only restoring a better version in order to enforce WP:POLICY against sockpuppetry, I've made that clear already. You on the other hand have been reverting me only because you think that the banned user's edits were actually good - ignoring WP:BAN's position on the matter. It doesn't take a genius to realise what's going on. I know that you hate me already, that's no news, after all I'm about to expose you (again). Miskin 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Yes, I agreed with the previous version of the article section. YOU are the one that fails to discuss the matter properly. Shame on you. Iblardi 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And since I am contributing to the article, I'm not a neutral user. I care for the integrity of the article. And don't you get angry when someone keeps throwing unmotivated accusations at you? Iblardi 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is complex. First let me address the content issues. To Iblardi: a couple questions: why did you remove the citation by Edward A. Thomas giving his birth date as 483 and replace it with a fact tag? Why did you remove the citation to the The Cambridge Medieval History which said he was not Slavic? I thought your other changes were ok. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have been a bit over-zealous. I did a rewrite of the whole section, and I must have missed the reference to Thomas. And it's allright with me if the part concerning the Slav connection is restored. We had a dispute over that, but it's not a big issue as far as I'm concerned. Iblardi 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-content issues: To Iblardi, you've been an active Wikipedia user since October, why are you using a red account and anon IPs to make edits? Everything here is reputation based. To Miskin, I suggest we work through the content issues on a per-sentence basis since, it seems sincere and in good faith. I agree with you it looks suspicious but sometimes that just happens I've seen it before. Keep an eye on things, like 3RR and perhaps put in an IP check and watch for other activities, build up a case record to show it is a sock puppet - right now it is just circumstantial though. Iblardi is not citing the same sources that Mursili, and reversion to Mursili's version is not evidence of guilt, since Mursili's version was arguably better than the version before that. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, to tell you the truth, I just now realize that the fact my name appears red in the article's history may mean something else than just the fact that it's my contribution. You may want to Google my name and find out... It's kind of... embarrassing. The anonymous edits I already explained. Iblardi 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

re: "Google my name" I don't know what your saying, please be specific. Also if you could respond to the above questions/concerns about the content changes. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, just after I registered, I was involved in an unintentional vandalism accident. It has to do with a slow pc, a slow connection, being unexperienced in the editing process, and a copy/paste action gone wrong, resulting in the sentence "All your base are belong to us" turning up in a Wikipedia page... It's right there in the "Random Acts of Kindness" section, darn it. Iblardi 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Further explanation: It was a bit late, and me and my girlfriend were discussing that expression. Wondering were it came from, I intended to copy/paste it into Google. Unfortunately my computer was choking, and I accidentally (due to lag and repetition of acts) pasted the expression into the Wikipedia window, then incidentally must have saved it by pressing the wrong button upon closing the session. I know it sounds improbable, but there it is. !blardi 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see I have been blocked. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi. !blardi 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, some people can actually be that stupid to prove their innocence. !blardi 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking: if this is what Wikipedia is all about, then I'm considering to quit it completely. Maybe I am too much involved in this article, I don't know. I have no interest in advocating one or another view on Justinian's ethnicity (I guess that is what it's all about), I'm just interested in history as such. I couldn't care less if Justinian spoke Greek, Slavic, Turkish or Chinese. It's kind of saddening and at the same time frustrating that my account has been banned on the suspicion of being someone's sock puppet. I hate being accused of something I have no part in whatsoever. My home phone number and private e-mail address are out there on the user's page. Go ahead and call me. I'll be out to work during the day from Monday to Friday though. !blardi 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For someone who couldn't care less you sure were persistant. I would advise you to stop assuming yourself to be smarter than others. Miskin 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Procopius

Other users have indeed correctly mentioned that Procopius' Secret History may not be the most unbiased source on Justinian's character. Why then is it still cited? Maybe it would be better to cite Procopius explicitly, and with it stating that he was, to say the least, no great fan of the emperor. La Belle Aude 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut and pasted this, since I apparently put it under "old talk". Sorry for being such a greenhorn. I still think it makes a valid point, though. La Belle Aude 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is sometimes the only source we have for certain things so it might be notable to mention it, to take with a grain of salt how well we know the "fact" in question. -- Stbalbach 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be far more correct then to either just omit it (since technically speaking it is a 6th century point of view) or make absolutely clear that it is a biased point of view? --La Belle Aude 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What specifically in the article are you referring too? -- Stbalbach 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This part in the life section: "Justinian was a man of unusual capacity for work (sometimes called the "Emperor Who Never Sleeps"), and possessed a temperate, affable, and lively character; but was also unscrupulous and crafty when it served him." -- La Belle Aude 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it reads like something from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm at work now, I have a stack of books that are all somewhat more modern. La Belle Aude 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Making it harder

I was about to edit the article, but now it's reverted it's a lot more work. Maybe I'm new and don't understand why, but could somebody explain it to me? I liked the old version better, although it needed serious revision. So before I set myself to work, please: why has it been reverted? La Belle Aude 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

WP:BAN doesn't preclude other editors from editing the article to how they think it should be. If you have a problem with the content itself please lets discuss. In any case a lot of the material you removed was never made by that user you are concerned with, other people have contributed to the section in its current state. -- Stbalbach 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As have I. I've just read that by reverting something from a blocked user you make it your own responsibility. I will take that responsibility, but I don't know how to revert yet. I'll do it as soon as I find out. (Or you can do it, Stbalbach.) It's by far easier to work with the version from before the reversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Belle Aude (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I see you already have. Thank you. May I set to work? The article is clearly sub-standard as compared to other wiki pages of this great an importance.

The only edit that wasn't done by the sockpuppets of a banned user on that section was my own (which I did revert anyway), I'll provide the diffs shortly. Disruptive users like User:Greier must be kept away by any means. Right La Belle Aude? Miskin 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, please explain. I've been werking on it a tiny bit and I was about to rewrite it. Now that it's reverted, may I work on it? I wouldn't like to see all my work lost afterwards. La Belle Aude 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes in the section "life": First sockpuppet User:Mursili contribution (18 December): [3]
Edits from 18th December to 7th January (unchanged): [4]
Edits from 7th January to 22th January (unchanged): [5]
Edits from 22th January to 8th February (unchanged): [6]
First revert per WP:BAN on the 8th of February: [7]
Second sockpuppet User:Iblardi: [8]
Contribution by myself: [9]
So as you can see the 'life' section, has been edited only by sockpuppets of banned users in the past few months. The source you restored earlier today was the edit done by myself. We have to restore the version as it was before sockpuppets interfered, and make additional contributions (such as my edit) on that version. We can't just let the article contain claims and sources provided by banned users, nor enforce sockpuppeting. Miskin 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also if you check the diffs the real reference on Justinian "not being a Slav" was "William George DeBurgh, 1953, “The Legacy of the Ancient World” - Penguin Books, p.421", not Cambridge Medieval history as it is shown now. The sockpuppets mixed up the sources and put their personal comments in reference tags, this is why their edits should be always reverted. Now there's a mess, and with you not letting me revert to an older version, it's hard to figure out what went on. If you take responsibily for restoring the anon's edits then fix the references that were removed and/or displaced. If I hadn't pointed this out to you, the article would contain random references at random edits. You realise now why I've been doing what I've been doing, and what "taking responsibility" on those edits means. Miskin 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm reverting to the previous, sock-free version, I tried to sort this out but all references tags are mixed and generally messed up. If you want to make edits then make them on the safe version, it won't take you long. I've wasted about one hour already trying to clean up after you. I'm now reverting again, I won't waste more of my time because you can't understand simple principles. I even tried to explain the situation by leaving a message in your Talk page, but you just wanted to have it your way. See the results now. Miskin 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on the article as well, Miskin. And StBalbach is taking responsibilityu for it, so safe yourself the trouble. About the De Burgh, 1953, I have the book here, and i don't see it. And even if it's in there, the book is over 50 years old. If you want to debunk nationalist theories of the present, please state a source of the present. Untill then, I'd better remove it. La Belle Aude 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can remove and put into question anything you want, just don't add what I just removed, i.e. the edits of banned users and their sockpuppets. Miskin 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not even if it is correct information? The sock puppet policy says you can if you take the responsibility for it.

I only now see that you had a debate about that earlier.

La Belle Aude 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justinian_I&diff=107846397&oldid=107837394 This one is correct. Could you revert it? I have the publication right here, this is factual and useful information. La Belle Aude 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of removing those edits, despite the disruptions they've caused, is to enforce the WP:BAN policy by preventing banned editors from editing wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content (in general). How come you're so interested in restoring those edits? Miskin 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm severely editing the article right now, which will mean accidentally reverting some of your reversions. Not as to help sock puppets, but just because they were right. Luckily, in the WP:BAN you quote, it says: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." So don't worry, everything will be fine. La Belle Aude 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so it's just another coincidence I guess. Miskin 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vague references to stuff I don't know yet. Be clearer, please, for the sake of the newbie. Anyway, you'll see the result of it, and I hope it'll be better than what it's like now. Your feedback then would be very welcome. -- La Belle Aude 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look Greier, I'm planning to remove every single edit you've made with every single of your sockpuppets, starting from this article. So you're just wasting your time. Miskin 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, feel free to email me. It's my official postgrad-email address, as you'll see. Please also reply at user:the wub -- La Belle Aude 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slav again

Decided to remove the mention of his Slavic background. It appears to be from a old source[10] which says he was from "the Latin race". Sounds fairly antiquated (what's a "Latin race"). Also found some newer sources that say he was Slavic. Open question for now. -- Stbalbach 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting. Are they paper sources or electronical sources? Are they serious? They can't be. Would you cite? If this is indeed the case, I may have been mistaken and we may want to keep it there, or cast it in a different form. -- La Belle Aude 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Latin race probably refers to his language, Mauricius was consider by the Latins as "the first Roman Emperor of the Greek race". It's up to you. Miskin 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Economy

I added a new section "Economy". Feel free to comment/add/cull; any constructive input is appreciated. Iblardi 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good addition and good sources. -- Stbalbach 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see I'll have to work on my English though. Iblardi 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nika riots

I made a separate heading "Nika riots". The subject seemed out of place in the section on the Justinianic wars, where it was treated until now. I'm not sure whether it deserves its own chapter -the Nika riots often get special attention in the literature- but if not, the section could be expanded to include other revolts/conspiracies against Justinian and given an appropriate title. Iblardi 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Art under Justinian

Javits2000, you might want to add a section on art history under Justinian, as I see you that is your specialisation? By the way, the list of footnotes is getting awfully long... Iblardi 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True about the footnotes: I preferred to kick them out of the main text, where there was a whole string of them under "religion." All of these are either to primary sources or to 19th-century secondary sources; I'm assuming they came along with the text of whatever religious encyclopedia was originally used to fill in this section. All of which is to say that they could probably be cut altogether, and replaced with a sinle citation of the direct source.

There is a section on the art of this period under Byzantine art; on the other hand a more general section on art & culture might be useful here (Cycle of Agathias, etc.) I'll think on it. --Javits2000 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that older versions of the article are actually much better structured than the current one [11]? Miskin 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some editors" have added all this useless, unverified information (e.g. "the emperor who never sleeps") on the intro of the article, and it has become a mess. Look how simple and attractive the intro of the article used to be. Miskin 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reserving judgment on the broader question (the comparative elegance of the two intros): "The emperor who never sleeps" is a well-known element of the Justinian legend, based in part on Anekdota Ch. 13. One can hardly attend an undergraduate lecture on the man without hearing about it, and it figures prominently in all the standard surveys, e.g. the title of Meier, Justinian, Ch. 4: <<Der schlafloseste aller Kaiser>> -- Die fruehen Jahre ("The most sleepless of all emperors" -- the early years"). --Javits2000 13:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so this one has been verified. It is still obvious that all information provided into the four "intro" paragraphs belongs in the body of the article. The older introductions were much more brief and NPOV. Justinian is not only to be praised and called the most "important" ruler of late antiquity. What does 'important' stand for anyway? Important to whom? As far as Byzantine history is concerned, Justinian's reign caused a great number of pros and an equal number of cons. Had he not accumulated all of the empire's energy on making unstable reconquests of Western lands, the Empire would have stood a better chance on defending the Holy land and Egypt from the Arabs. This is also something heard in lectures about Justinian I and Basil II, unarguably of greater importance. You verified one out of the countless POVs included in the intro paragraphs, so what about the rest? For example: "Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era. The new European powers of the Goths, Franks, and Saxons in the north were inheriting the ancient Roman lands."Says who?? Miskin 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why does the article insist on calling Justinian "the Roman Emperor" and his Empire "the Roman Empire"? Despite what editors think, by Justinian's time we make a clear distinction between the dead "Roman Empire" and the succeeding "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine" Empire. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant. Why is everybody putting OR above wp:policy? Miskin 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know 'we' had a consensus on what to call Justinian and his empire, but in any case the terms "Roman", "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" are used throughout the article. Iblardi 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that User:Miskin acquaint himself with some of the recent literature on Justinian (the Cambridge Companion would be a nice place to start) instead of temperamentally removing sections of text on the basis of an obscure "POV" claim -- and indeed, without even tagging said text as "POV" or requesting a citation beforehand.

There's nothing in the paragraph that was removed that is not a commonplace of the scholarly literature on Justinian; for example, the one "disputed" passage, relating to the changing status of the western empire, accords fully with Haldon's interpretation of Justinian's reign (Byzantium in the seventh century, 15-16), or indeed with that of any number of other reputable scholars; again, the Maas book is useful as a statement of the present consensus.

Constructive behavior: writing text, editing text, adding references, selectively questioning claims and allowing other editors the chance to respond. Disruptive behavior: deleting text capriciously in an area that is clearly outside of one's expertise, and demanding that other editors justify passages that are hardly cotroversial. The latter form of behavior just wastes the time of others. Was Justinian "important"? Uhh.... Reverting. --Javits2000 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing. First of all I didn't revert but I moved the content to the Talk page. Whether I choose to add a fact tag or remove the content is my personal choice. To quote from WP:POLICY:

In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material... If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page... Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Is that clear enough? You are the one who's breaking the policy by restoring the unsourced content and by preferring to offend an editor instead of providing a citation as requested. I think that your "I would prefer that X acquaint himself with Y" practice is not suggested by any policy as a reply to someone who asks for citations. I would also like to be referred to directly and not in third person. You can now stop trying to show your likeness to me, I'm sure everyone has already got the idea. I will ignore all this for now and stick to the point. If what Justinian should have known (but did not) is such common knowledge among scholars then please forgive our ignorance and provide us with some citations. How a citation is rephrased can be subject to personal opinion, and I would like to offer mine on the edits in question. Miskin 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the disputed passage is the following: "Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era. The new European powers of the Goths, Franks, and Saxons in the north were inheriting the ancient Roman lands."

As stated above, this accords, for example, with Haldon's interpretation (Byzantium in the seventh century), which I relay here only because it is at hand; other recent sources (e.g. Maas) will reflect a similar opinion.

"During the fifth century the unified Roman world empire.... was replaced by a polycentric system of barbarian successor states in the West... (p. 16).

"Justinian's great ambition was the renovatio imperii, the restoration of the world empire of Rome. The requirements for this task were considerable: the reconquest of lost territories; the establishment of Chalcedonian orthodoxy and religious unity throughout the empire; the reorganisation of the administrative and judicial machinery; a planned economic policy designed to support the increased demands of his military undertakings; and a grand scheme of building and renewal in both civil, ecclesiastical, and military spheres. Such policy aims were inevitably quite unrealisable in a number of respects. The partial reorganisation of the administration and the fiscal establishment of the state, the partially successful policy of reconquest, the vast expense of long drawn-out wars, especially in Italy, and the partial nature of the building programmes, all point to ultimate failure. The resources available were simply not adequate to the task. Apart from this, the practical realities of sixth-century politics and the actual strengths of the successor kingdoms in the West cannot be ignored. The fundamental principle enunciated from Constantinople, of a single legitimate emperor and empire, was as taken for granted as the notion of a single Christian Church. Even Germanic rulers recognised the emperor at Constantinople as the highest source of authority. But their idea of imperial authority did not involve actual reincorporation into the political framework of the Roman state, and Justinian's attempts to turn ideological theory into pragmatic politics met with universal, if not always particularly successful, opposition. A second element of the ideological equation was likewise not to be realised in practical terms; for while Justinian saw his role and that of any Roman emperor as entailing the liberation of orthodox subject-populations in the West from the rule of heretics, the practicalities of finance and politics meant that he was unable to put his theory into practice...." (pp. 17-19) --Javits2000 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As expected, the citation does not justify the use of abstract and imprecise comments such as "the most significant X of Y" or "achieved what no other person before or ever would again after" or "Partly, this was because he did not realize that" or "a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era" or "were inheriting the ancient Roman lands". What I've been questioning was the wording of the edits and not their essence, this is what you failed to see. As long as this type of comment is an editor's re-worded version and not a version coming directly from a source, then it's not very fitting for an encyclopedia. A POV for example here would be the extra emphasis given on the conquest of Rome, implying a subjective positive utility on something which could be hardly included on Justinian's positive impact on Roman, Greek or European history. But to be honest I'm no more in the mood to care about this, so you don't even have to reply. Miskin 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Justinian

Shouldn't the 'Justinian' page really have a list of Justinians (ie. Justinian I, Justinian II) rather than redirecting here? fluoronaut 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Making strong assertions

This may seem trivial, but I think it is fundamental to understanding the kind of job we are doing here. My comment is prompted by the last revert made by Stbalbach. The previous version of the line read:

"Justinian is generally considered to be one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity".

This was changed back to an earlier version:

"Justinian is one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity". (Italics mine)

I find that making such strong assertions about someone's historical significance is rather un-encyclopedical. After all, we can not know exactly how important Justinian was, and an encyclopedia is not there to pass judgement on such matters; we are only to reflect the mainstream scientific opinion on the subject, which we do know, and i.m.o. we should make clear that it is an opinion, not an established fact - all the more so because history is not an exact science. We should be representing instead of claiming. (It would be a whole different thing if this was a scholarly paper of course.) Because of this I would prefer the first version of the sentence over the second one. Any thoughts on this? Iblardi 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Weasel words. "One of" already covers any concerns about 'strong statements' - I don't think there is anyone that would not say he was "one of" the most significant rulers of Late Antiquity - that is a pretty wide and general statement. Adding "is generally considered to be" on top of the "one of" dilutes it to the point that it seems like there is some controversy about his importance, something being left unsaid, which is not the case and arguably POV. -- Stbalbach 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is with the use of "historically significant", which is a vague and subjective qualification in itself. If we would say he was one of the most "famous" or "studied" rulers of Late Antiquity, it would be a different matter; that is something that can be established objectively. But what is "historically significant"? The use of this qualification would be justified if, for instance, we could link to another Wikipage where the term was clearly defined, or otherwise explain it to the reader. Although I agree that Justinian is one of the most important figures of his time, I still think that we, as an encyclopedia, are not the ones to make this claim. In my opinion, saying that it is agreed upon that Justinian is an important figure and letting the facts speak for themselves would be the most neutral and therefore the best way to deal with it. Iblardi 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of things are intentionally vague, it is just to put him into historical context in the lead section per WP:LEAD as a high-level summary. This is not a professional-level thesis written for experts, it is providing uninformed general readers who have never heard of Justinian before some context that this guy is important. The paragraph then goes on to justify the statement with some specific statements of fact. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines on how to write a lead section. I don't really care what it says but it needs to say something about Justinians importance and significance in the big picture. -- Stbalbach 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We shall keep it this way then. Iblardi 18:02, 24 March 2007 (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)

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)

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)

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?[12] 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)

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 - Recovering

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?!.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dime atanasovski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture - why delete this?

Aldux - explain why you are removing the entire Popular Culture section. It was been well linked to sourced Wiki pages, and is acceptable as described here. There are hundreds of good articles that do this. Dinkytown talk 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you listening or not at all? Because frankly, your answers make me doubt. First of all: WP:V is not an opinion. If something is inserted, it has to be sourced, and sourced reliably (so no IMDB); also, you've got to prove it's notable enough to stand in that specific article (just because in a little known film a historical character is mentioned it doesn't give him automatically a place in the article dedicated to the historical figure in question). And when I said Verifiability is not an opinion, you can't argue for keeping unsourced material saying it's sourced somewhere else. As stated by policy, unsourced content "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced" and this is what I will do. Also, to conclude, you seem to have a weak understanding of the differences that run between policies, guidelines and essays, or else it would be very hard for me to understand why you used an essay (WP:IPC) against policy, as while the latter is binding, essays are personal and often minority viewpoints that have no more holding than the opinion of any single wikipedian (and anyway, don't say what you do, but as noted that doesn't count really anyway).Aldux (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, lower your tone. If you have a problem with the sources, then we can discuss. Your hostility is not productive. There are thousands of articles that have popular culture section. Case in point here, or would you remove that entire article because all of those films are not sourced on that page? Dinkytown talk 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dinkytown, if I insulted you in any way, than you have all my excuses (really), but I honestly don't see anything uncivil in the way I've adressed you: I have put in doubt the solidity of your knowledge of key aspects of wikipedia'a policy, and I still do, as I must admit, your answers puzzle me. The problem is that there are simply no sources: how I can I brag with sources if there aren't any. Please, read what I've told you previously: I've been an editor and an admin a long time, and I know policy damn well. Saying "There are thousands of articles that have popular culture section" is close to saying "There are thousands of unsourced articles", policy is policy, but we can't apply it always for practical reasons; that said the example isn't perfectly the same: I never said it was impossible to have a popular culture section, I'just asked it to be reliably sourced and notable to the context; is that so incredibly strange to ask? And I can't help noticing you've avoided adressed the issues concerning policy.... I must say the example you've made is rather weak: find me an unsourced featured list, and then in will be different, but as the tag in the article you indicated tells, this is very very far from being an example on how we should make articles here. Instead, this is a GA, so don't be surprised if standards are more strict. I will be happy to answer further on the point, if this will bring you to have a better comprehension of policy and guidelines.Aldux (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aldux - First, thank you for your consideration and excuses. I did believe that you were uncivil, but I would rather put that past us. I know you've been around for a long time, about a year longer than I, but damn - 23,000 edits? Don't you work? :)

Actually, I agree with everything you said - good reliable source are paramount and supreme. However, when I have been in your situation and I saw a questionable source, I drop a , or some other tag and waited awhile for a response, unless it was BLP - then kill it immediately. If I were in contact with the person doing the editing, I would have told them about the issue, then worked with them on it until there was a resolution, usually with a happy ending. That didn't happen here. I've filed complaints against people under similar circumstances that had very different results. However, I don't want to dwell on this. If anything, you deserve respect because of your voluminous work here.

Let's start over; you're Italian I take it. Two of the three films in question were Italian. Do you know any reliable Italian internet source that might site these films? I was not the one who started that paragraph, but I thought it is still worth saving and could be made better. It's late here - good night... Dinkytown talk 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I started I did have quite a lot of free time as a student, but in the last years since I started working not so much, which is why my editing rythm declined sharply... That said, 23,000 is nothing special: lots of editors have done better, and anyways quantity doesn't mean much, it's quality that ultimately counts.

I'm happy we are now reaching a more serene atmosphere; adressing your points, I see your surprised at the end of the report, but you've got to understand that the circumstances have always a considerable weight; in particular, this article being a GA means that the weight to bring sourced content, always policy, is even stronger. After all, it would be great if this article could eventually become an FA, and FAs, especially history FAs, rarely tolerate popular culture sections. I must admit I'm also not as tolerant as you: I expect people to source new material, and if their convinced it's legitimate, I don't understand why they can't source it, as cite tags have too often an unhealthy tendency to stay around for years.

Now regarding the films, I hadn't noticed before, but even the article films themselves are unsourced (there must have been some mutual misunderstanding here regarding this). Answering to your question there's in Italian Mymovies.it; it's database contains under the various films quite a number of reviews, and since the reviews are from well known books they should pass RS, also because those articles need sourcing to avoid the danger of deletion due to the suspicion of lack of notability. There's also, regarding this and as menioned previously, a notability issue to solve to put them in this article; there have to be reliable secondary sources that discuss the figure of Justinian in the film to put it here, to know he is in the film somewhere isn't really enough (to make an example, it is possible that while a mention of the film could be OK in the Theodora bio, it may not in the Justinian bio).Aldux (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aldux, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. To tell you the truth, I've never heard of FA and GA before this. I guess we all learn something here now and then... I know what you mean about the history pages rarely tolerating popular culture sections. Normally I would agree with you, since its so close to 'trivia' which should be burned, but I thought a Justinian relate film would have been relevant and informative. As you probably saw from my home page, I'm fanatical about Byzantine history, and I always wondered if there where any films about the subject at any time, foreign or otherwise.

I stand corrected - a movie about Theodora should not be on a Justinian page. I didn't think about that. Since I have never seen the flick, he may not even be in there...

Regarding the sources of the film list, many of the sources have been using Internet Movie Database as their source. IMDb is a commercial website, so the question comes up as to whether is is a reliable source of not. If another site could be had that was more academic, then could would solve the problem. Dinkytown talk 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dinkytown :-) What i said regarding Theodora was just an example to show that it wasn't automatic, but this doesn't mean it isn't possible: at the end it all burns down to the sources, and if there's a solid source which speaks of Justinian (not just a fleeing mention) then it's just fine. And while it would be hard to get a popular culture sec. to get a pass in a GA and a FA, especially in a history article, it wouldn't be impossible as I said, only one would have to be ready to make it exhaustive and become a description of all notable cultural depictions (poetry, drama, music, visual arts) and make sure it's not a list but a cultural history. Now regarding IMDB, the problem it has is that it's just like us, user-generated, so it's not considered reliable, even if it's often used for the most basic info, i.e. cast, length, rating. For IMDB as a reliable source see Wikipedia:RS/IMDB: "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." That said, the various film articles as a rule have a external link to the related IMDB page, but that's in good part because EL have lesser rules and require less reliability than refs. As for Byzantine history, you've got all my understanding! :-))))) I too have always had since I was a teenager a great fascination for Byzantine art and history, and read a lot history books and visited quite a few of Byzantine-related places :-) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL - yes, I knew every Byzantine Emperor when I was in seventh grade. Which only showed that I had no social life when I was in middle school... I definitely was not one of the 'cool kids"... I have a Deesis Mosaic hanging on my wall that I did back then. I've even made a pilgrimage to Istanbul, Haiga Sophia, Walls of Theodosius, etc. Even had the privilege in getting detained by the Turkish Police (i.e. don't take pictures of police stations in the background, regardless of what Byzantine ruins are in front of it...). Nearly did a rendition of Midnight Express...

Had I seen Wikipedia:RS/IMDB, I would have ended my complaint - very sorry... Before all this, I didn't pay too much attention to the quality of the IMDB source, since I'm a history major, I should have known better...

I would like to scout around and look for another Good Article page that deals with something like a Cultural Section, but this might be a long term project... Cya... Dinkytown talk 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Source "Mansi, Concilia" used in the article

Can anyone tell me what this source is? I am unable to find it (except in source lists for things like the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). What *is* it, exactly, so that I can obtain a copy? NJMauthor (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Gian Domenico Mansi's enormous collection of documents from church councils. It's probably online somewhere, it's like 300 years old. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. was this a Roman Catholic document? 98.117.124.36 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Which, the 6th century document, or Mansi's collection? Mansi was Catholic, but there wasn't really a "Roman" Catholic church in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the affiliation of the 300 year old collection itself, not the collected documents. NJMauthor (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Burial date

In the fact sheet under the picture at the beginning of the article is said that he was buried in 372 bc, which is before the date of his death (565). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.58.72.168 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting the error. The incorrect date has been removed from the infobox. I currently have no information on when Justinian was actually buried, so I have left the entry blank. --Chewings72 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted info

I don't know why was recent info deleted I added that Justinian never spoke Greek, it was well sourced. It is said in another one "Justinian s government was Roman and the language of the government - Latin" see here . I don't know how you can be so rude with Ip-users everybody is labelling me a sock the investigation will revail that is not true. Maybe I should create an account finally. Don't bite new users. And nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone - just labelling me a sock. That's not nice, some users have the right to edit anonimously here. --107.178.46.170 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone" Really? I rather don't think that is the case. I at least used the edit summaries to pass you a message, which you blithely ignored at least once. More to the point, if you wish to edit an article, you have to have a modicum of knowledge about it, and writing the nonsense you wrote about Greek and Latin, you obviously don't. And this is remarkably similar to another edit-warring user active in these articles recently. Plus, for a "new user" you are remarkably conversant in wiki-speak, what with edit summaries and "Don't bite new users". I hope to be disproven about that, but let's see... Constantine ✍ 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The source you cite above states that the Greek language had become "the ordinary dialect in use at court," so listing both the Latin and Greek translations of his name is completely appropriate. And whether you are a sock or not, you appear to be engaged in edit wars on numerous pages. Please stop your disruptive editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Justian is somehow labelled by modern Greek historiography as the conqueror-hero of Rome, while his wars aimed at restoration of the old Roman Empire and he himself did not even speak Greek." [got this quote from here https://books.google.com/books?id=Nb6XM7HV4E0C&pg=PA32&dq=justinian+didnt+speak+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NFWIVb_fPNe5oQT49rD4AQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=justinian%20didnt%20speak%20greek&f=false]

As for experience, I used to edit Wikipedia as an IP since six years at least but I have the right to stay anonymous, I am often treated bad as a newcomer that is what I meant by don't bite. As for sock puppet labels, it is inappropriate when you don't know, but the investigation prove that we edit at least from different countries with that user. Not any valid reasons were stated except "sockpuppet". So I know everybody is tendencious towards their nationality, but please keep a neutral point of view as Greek, avoid biased edits. Justinian didn't speak Greek first, second - logicaly then he is not Greek by origin but Thraco-Illyrian, third- Latin was the language of the government at tge time. Before the legalization if Greek in 620 there were Roman emperors of Greek ancestry, even writers in Greek, for all these it would be relevant to include the Greek name, but Justinian was not one of them. I think I evidenced all these three. I thus reckon this name is relevant exactly forthis guy. Justinian was not at the court but at the government. I hope we enjoy this discussion and make a nice debate of this. :-) --107.178.46.170 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointy editing

It would appear that Firefox lani is disrupting this article to make a point by adding a constant stream of sources, of which one was by a singer, to extol what appears to be a misguided nationalistic intent for Justinian's ethnicity! I see no need for more than 3 or 4 sources for a particular issue. As it stands right now, there are 10 sources for Justinian's "Illyro-Roman" ethnicity/ancestry, which apparently means something terribly important to Firefox lani.

Continuing with Firefox's disruptive editing is his attempt to remove a source, which he did not properly research, stating, "Robert Browning appears to be a poet, not an historian", undoubtedly since he could not do the proper research concerning his own unreliable source(Eno Koço appears to be a singer, not an historian, https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eno_Ko%C3%A7o). Firefox's removal appears to be nothing but a pathetic revenge edit, by the way here is Robert Browning (Byzantinist).

I propose we limit the number of sources for Justinians "ethnicity" to a maximum of 4 sources. I do not see this as a huge issue, granted I'm not motivated by any nationalistic agenda, but when it disrupts an article then measures need to be taken. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not motivated by nationalist propagandas..I just find highly unreliable that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian..He was born in Tauresium, in a land who was inhabited by the Dardanians, who were an Illyrian tribe.And about the sources, I don't think that it would be a big problem if I add more than 3 sources about his Illyrian origin, since his ethnic origin is debatable.Maybe 10 are too much, but at least I can add 6 sources --Firefox lani (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"I just find highly unreliable that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian."

And yet your opinion means nothing here.

I believe 3 sources per ethnicity is more than sufficient. Anymore is simply citation overkill which appears to be someone trying to make a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't understood me well...The point was that, just because I find unlikely that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian(based on many evidences like I mentioned before), does not make me motivated by nationalist propagandas..And about the citation overkill, we can solve this problem very easily, by putting multiple sources into a single footnote number, like this example --Firefox lani (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The origin of your motivations is not really relevant. What is relevant is that apparently they do exist and because they are rather strong they have led to WP:CITEOVERKILL. Three citations for each side of the argument is enough. There is no need to convert this into a soccer match where the number of citations for each side is treated like a goal aiming to win the match. If there is a reliable source saying that there is a controversy or that he was likely Thracian or Illyrian you can add it but you cannot try to shift the argument through adding more sources favouring your side. This is not a citation arms race. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is not making a citation race..If so, then I can find more than 20 sources in a short time and add.My point is to contribute in an issue that is debatable..Maybe 10 sources were too much, I agree with you in that, but at least 5 wouldn't have been too much.And I want to end this discussion here, and I don't think it would be good if we would engage in an edit war over and over again.--Firefox lani (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefox lani (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So you edit war instead? Clearly you are just here to make a point regarding one possible ethnicity for Justinian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's you who is making a war edit.Despite my sources being reliable you are just deleting them.How do I violate Wikipedia rules, if I contribute with 2 or 3 more sources??Better go and warn those who are vandalizing Wikipedia, instead of checking me all the time and repeatedly deleting my edits, just because I add 2 or 3 more reliable sources.--Firefox lani (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, three RS are enough. Four or five are too much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

English version of name

What's with the spelling with an initial I instead of J? It's not spelled that way in English, though of course Latin had no J. I'd suggest deleting it as misleading. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article needs major revision

This article is a complete mess; it is nothing but an unorganized collection of different topics related to Justinian. It doesn't have a clear beginning and ending. Whoever wrote this, I can only assume that he/she has no experience in writing. Most sections in the article would be better located in an article about Byzantium during Justinian's reign, but not on his biography. --Lecen (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (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)

Honestly, what about a lot of things though? Cyril is venerated as a saint in the Coptic Church (Monophysite) despite the fact that he was strongly Dyophysitic. Nestorius was banished as a heretic, even though almost all of his arguments were accepted, with the exception of Christokos, instead of Theotokos. It just is what it is. She's also Canonized by the Orthodox Chruch, by the way. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

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)

I love primary sources, much prefer them to secondary, that being said... Most primary sources require interpretation. Interpretation of a Primary Source becomes a secondary source, which is what Wikipedia wants, specifically from peer reviewed journals. Anecdota is wonderful, and also wonderfully biased, so a quote or something along those lines would be fine, but written in context, and sections shouldn't be based off of it, but rather a secondary source, now then with this, it's fine to add in a bit about what Anecdota says, or it's view of the subject, but it shouldn't be used as the weight behind a subject. Do you see what I'm getting at? (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

"The Empire entered a period of territorial decline not to be reversed until the 9th century."

This doesn't make sense, a decline did come, but not until really several decades later, when Maurice was assassinated by Phokas in 602, starting the devastating Byzantine-Sassanid war. Up until this point, there was mismanagement which led to the loss of land in Italy, but there was also great land gains by Maurice in the East, so territorially there was no decline. Economically Justin the Younger wasn't the greatest emperor, but Tiberius, and Maurice did a good job, the northern borders were kept more or less safe after Justin the Younger's death; Maurice even had expeditions go north of the Danube. So I don't quite see this at all. If no one objects, I'd like to remove this sentence. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Agreed. What's the point of crystal ball gazing a few centuries ahead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (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)

I would like to take on this and ask a question for better understanding this "point". Justinian appears, on it's page, as from Tauresium but on the citations there is doubt regarding Him being from Tauresium or from Justiniana Prima (which states on it's page as being erected by Justinian). My question is regarding if there is a plausible doubt regarding the place of birth of Justinian (Tauresium or Justiniana Prima) or about it's location (if Tauresium is near Skopje or where it's supposed to be Justiniana Prima). In any case my questions come, probably, from a lack of my part in understanding the way in how this information is presented in Justinian's Wiki EN page. I'm a Wiki PT user trying to update it's information while using the superb work done in this page. --Paulo Especial (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious Relations with Rome

I am questioning the neutrality and encyclopedic style of the section regarding Justinian's relationship with Roman Christianity. It seems at times written more like a school assignment arguing one side, and there is a visible bias against Western Christianity (what would become Roman Catholicism). Please correct me if I am out of place here. I have not read the entire article, but I will only place the POV template on this particular section for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus1 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And rightfully so, Timotheus1. I have overhauled this section, cutting it down in size and removed all the POV pushing and silly name calling. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Good to hear. It is important to get balance. I am pleased that the article has been overhauled for factuality but it really does go a bit overboard in making him so saintly -- which is only one perspective, even if it is an official position of the Church. It would be appropriate historically, to indicate the effect Justinian's rule had on the world apart from his unification and spread of Christianity. For instance, the closing of the Plato Academy hat the Neoplatonists had revived was a major blow to philosophy, and the final closing of the thousands of years of tradition in Egypt as 'pagans' were forced to adopt Justinian's religion. I don't have the wherewithal to fight this corner, but there must be some historians who would like to add some balance. Most of my references to Justinian are in print books so not that helpful for Wiki perhaps(?) but here's a starter. https://www2.bc.edu/marian-simion/th406/readings/0210maccoull.pdf He might have been a saint to the Christian world -- or that part of the Christian world that accepted mainstream doctrine -- but as always with the losers in a political battle, he was the opposite to most of the others.

The Code of Justinian, which it seems extended the use of torture, is not mentioned, and the page on Wiki is equally sanitised to make Justinian look saintly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Justinianus

ignoring this sort of abuse for instance

Suppression of religious and intellectual freedom by Justinian has been noted in the small print of wiki elsewhere: "The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies, has been cited repeatedly by Christian authors who endorsed an idea of religious persecution."

[wiki link] and a scholarly article here:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/22*.html

Good luck! Parzivalamfortas 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

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)

I read a historical mystery that takes place in Rome and the author kept talking about the "corn ships from Egypt." I thought this odd and researched it. Turns out that in early Britain (but not Roman-era Britain) any grain was often called "corn." So I doubt the Romans called the grain ships from Egypt "corn ships." I learned from reading Justinian's Flea (a book reference in the article) that it made more sense economically (shipping costs and spoilage) to ship grain by ship across the Mediterranean then 50 miles over the mountains of Italy by ox-cart. This is also why the bubonic plague spread so rapidly across Justinian's empire, as the rats crept aboard the grain ships (with fleas attached) and fed on the grain, but lived long enough to survive until they reached the next port. When they died at the next port, the fleas left them and hopped onto another host, thereby spreading the bubonic plague. If the rats spread by ox-cart, they would not have lived long enough to make it to the next city as ox-cart travel was so slow. The bubonic plague was an important cause of the collapse of the new Roman Empire under Justinian. I am retired now, but I use to write and lecture, while working as an entomologist at a major university, on insect-vectored diseases and how they affected history. This is why I read Justinian's Flea. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Corn = wheat in Ancient Europe 104.169.17.29 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311111356/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/ to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (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)

Don't forget the bubonic plague. While the author of Justinian's Flea takes forever to get around to it, the plague, which hit Justinian's empire near the end of his reign, wiped out many of the bureaucrats who were responsible for keeping the Empire running. It also hit his armies hard too, not even considering the trade unions, merchants, farmers, etc. One importance consequence was that the Roman and Persian empires lost so many soldiers to the plague that they hired some of the people they were fighting to serve as mercenaries. For example, the Persians hired Arab warriors from the desert, which meant that these warriors learned military tactics which they taught to their sons and grandsons who used that knowledge when Islam erupted from the desert and into the weakened Persian and Roman empires. See my post under "Corn" above. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and nixed the decline part, it's a long argument on the responsibility of Justinian for the set backs under Phocas, and for me the argument is significantly lessened by the successes of Tiberius II, and particularly of Maurice. The fact that Maurice did what he did, and expanded the Empire's land holdings to their greatest height since the fall of the west, signifies to me, that the argument for Justinian's responsibility in the empire's decline is a tenuous one, and one that need not be placed on the Wiki page. I think it's also important to bear in mind what exactly decline means, the ERE has a reputation similar to that of the Seleukid empire of being an empire perpetually in decline, but in regard to the Seleukid empire Jeremy McInerney of the University of Pennsylvania likes to point out that they left the untenable regions, and focused on the important areas, i.e. the trade routes, and the fertile land. The same is true of the ERE. 79.158.167.31 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.39.45 (talk)