Ioannes_Ahenobarbus

I want the Roma Victrix Beaker @UNRV http://bit.ly/romavictrix

Sounds fantastic, count me in!

I am certainly interested! Thanks for the offer.

Unfortunately I cannot say too much about the Khazars. Concerning the Romans/Byzantines, however, it is rather obvious to me that the Roman/Byzantine Empire basically stood as a bulwark against the energetic, bellicose state of the Arabs. After all, the newly Muslim Arab tribes basically attacked and conquered everything until stopped by the Franks and Romans/Byzantines. It is the old, traditional theory of why the Arabs halted, but it is still the most plausible in my opinion.

Start with a general survey, I've mentioned Warren Treadgold's "A History of Byzantine State and Society" before, and I'll do it again here! If you can obtain a copy of it, John Haldon's "The Byzantine Wars" has a good chapter on the conquest of Italy. Definitely read Procopios! You cannot get more detail than him. Hopefully that helps, and good luck!

The reconquest of Africa and Italy was very possible (considering they were both conquered, even by rather small forces), as was the consolidation of rule in said territories. However, several factors played into the failure of the latter, and almost of the former. If one can trust Procopios, which I do, except in the Anecdota, then Justinian was quite the penny-pincher when it came to the army. Also, until recently, scholars have underestimated and/or ignored the multiple outbreaks of plague during Justinian's reign. Such an epidemic would greatly reduce revenue and recruits for the army. Concerning the army proper, some exarchs (military governors) were rather greedy folks who liked to bleed the area dry rather than pacify the locals. Additionally, even though they were able to win important battles, the comparably small number of soldiers sent to Africa and Italy were inadequate to effectively and permanently govern such large areas.

Well, without going into too much detail, let us ponder what exactly they did do: allowed the fiscal crisis to worsen, hastened the loss of territory due to inaction and inability, caused Western Europe to view the Romans (Byzantines) as ever more treacherous, thus inciting more aggression, and ultimately caused Constantinople to be taken (a little bit of generalization there, but not much). So yeah, they sucked. I typically try not to be too harsh on people such as emperors who have an impossible amount of stress to abide, but those three were basically un-clever schemers who could not control the positions into which they were placed.

Nerva is more or less correct. The exarchs were military governors initially assigned in an ad hoc capacity that basically become the norm considering the exarchates' short existence. Consult John Haldon's "Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204" for a bit more information.

For a great review of both reigns, check Warren Treadgold's "A History of BYzantine State and Society." A great read with abundant information.

Personally, I just refer to the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire and try not to worry too much about the actual "turning point," so to speak. The whole debate is really an endless ideological argument (at least in my humble opinion).

Ioannes Ahenobarbus. Male, thus the ahenobarbus