Byzantine's Nero?

[Andrew Dalby]

Did the Byzantine Empire have an emperor that measured up to someone like Nero in terms of sheer cruelty, perversity, and insanity?

 

I vote for Andronikos I (Komnenos), Manuel's wayward cousin. Seized power 1182, killed young Alexios II in 1183 having already killed Alexios's sister Maria, her husband Renier, Alexios's mother Xene, and lots of others; killed many more before he was himself killed, horribly, by the people of Constantinople, in 1185. He only had a short time to rival Nero, but he worked hard at it. Oh, and (aged 65) he married Alexios's fiancee, Agnes/Anna, who was then aged 11.

 

Andrew

[Theodosius]

Hello all. A mighty fine forum this is.

 

I am currently reading Procopius' "The Secret History" (the Penguin Edition). Although I am not certain how Procopius' account is in this particular work is viewed by academia in general, Justinian and Theodora did in fact (according to Procopius) promote civil unrest amongst the populace throughout the Empire. For example, ever the great law reformer, Justinian is said to have acquired through such reforms, vast amounts of monies which he then spent on either massive public projects or on paying off foreign invaders.

 

This last, especially, Procopius detested. According to him, the monies which Justinian forcibly took off the unfortunate subjects, were used to pay off the various inavders. However, as each tribe got wind of what was being offered for peace, they took in turns to "invade" various villages and the sort. This began to seriously hurt the Treasury.

 

However, the ways in which the monies were confiscated from the people (I have not yet read much of the book, so you will have to bear with me here) displaced many so much so, that he caused emigration to be effected as people were not able to survive under the Emperor's edicts.

 

Money was also drawn through his encouragement of the blue/green factionalism, where many people of note were murdered and robbed of their goods. So much so that night life was curtailed as though military curfew had been imposed.

 

One last point. Procopius pours disdain on Justinian for his treatment of those who did not venerate Christianity and many were put to death, as apparently happened in Procopius' hometown of Caesarea.

 

Theodora also, although she abandoned her waywardness, still engaged in much court intrigue and supported Antonina's unfaithful actions towards her famous husband, Belisarius.

 

Unfortunately, this is all that I have read until this point. Whether Justinian was a Nero, would be hard to decide. He may not have been as tyrannical as Nero (although Procopius would probably beg to differ), but he certainly did institute many policies which caused upheaval and injustice throughout the Empire.

[Honorius]

i would agree with andrew....Andronikos was pretty bad. but how about Theodora/Justinian on the Nika riots?

[Neos Dionysos]

Hello all. A mighty fine forum this is.

 

I am currently reading Procopius' "The Secret History" (the Penguin Edition). Although I am not certain how Procopius' account is in this particular work is viewed by academia in general, Justinian and Theodora did in fact (according to Procopius) promote civil unrest amongst the populace throughout the Empire. For example, ever the great law reformer, Justinian is said to have acquired through such reforms, vast amounts of monies which he then spent on either massive public projects or on paying off foreign invaders.

 

This last, especially, Procopius detested. According to him, the monies which Justinian forcibly took off the unfortunate subjects, were used to pay off the various inavders. However, as each tribe got wind of what was being offered for peace, they took in turns to "invade" various villages and the sort. This began to seriously hurt the Treasury.

 

However, the ways in which the monies were confiscated from the people (I have not yet read much of the book, so you will have to bear with me here) displaced many so much so, that he caused emigration to be effected as people were not able to survive under the Emperor's edicts.

 

Money was also drawn through his encouragement of the blue/green factionalism, where many people of note were murdered and robbed of their goods. So much so that night life was curtailed as though military curfew had been imposed.

 

One last point. Procopius pours disdain on Justinian for his treatment of those who did not venerate Christianity and many were put to death, as apparently happened in Procopius' hometown of Caesarea.

 

Theodora also, although she abandoned her waywardness, still engaged in much court intrigue and supported Antonina's unfaithful actions towards her famous husband, Belisarius.

 

Unfortunately, this is all that I have read until this point. Whether Justinian was a Nero, would be hard to decide. He may not have been as tyrannical as Nero (although Procopius would probably beg to differ), but he certainly did institute many policies which caused upheaval and injustice throughout the Empire.

 

 

Most of academia views 'The Secret History' as more of entertainment value than historical accuracy. The fact that we have a man who wrote so many books on Belisarius' campaigns and also on the public works of Justinian, (which he acclaims and proceeds to venerate Justinian for), and then suddenly comes out with this which in complete contrast to everything he had written before is cause to look at the account as speculative. There may have been an underlying reason to ruin them later in life for reasons of jealousy, intrigue or simply pent up hatred. The fact that we only have his accounts on many of these events also leaves us to question the truth of them since we cannot verify the vadility of them with other historians. In either case, it is not wrong that Justinian did leave the Empire in debt, partially because of his massive building projects, but also due to his expenditures on reconqeoring the West and paying off the Persians who would attack when the army was away in Italy. Yet his building projects were not luxury, but more geared toward the betterment of the city overall and the most famous of which is the Hagia Sophia which still stands to today and is renowned as one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Would I consider him a Nero? Hardly, he instituted many reforms and laws to the administration of the empire and seems to have been an overall good ruler. Theodora, if you do not beleive all the negativity of 'The Secret History' which in my opinion is laid out so thickly that you must question the truth of it, was good for Justinian. Had it not been for her steadfastness and resolute determination, Justinian may have lost the throne during the Nika revolts, she was of equal status as her husband, helped increase the privlieges and rights of women in the east, and routinely would run adminstrative tasks for his husband when he was ill. Her contempt for Belisarius did make matters hard, but overall she was a strong and good empress and is considered a saint by many orthodox christians. Also, Justinians persectuions of Christians was on a sect of Christianity, not the religion in general, however his attacks were centered on areas of Palastine, Syra and Egypt and duie to this, less than a hundred years later, the terrible persecutions brought on them had an effect with the Arabs invaded since the Arabs allowed freedom of worship and was more favored to the persecutions of the Romans. In then end, some can argue Justinian did more harm than good by trying to retake the West, but given all of his actions and reforms and policies and even building projects he left Constantinople greater than he had received it and I would not equate him with the likes of Nero, afterall, a man who is sometimes called Justinian the Great is in no way a Nero.

 

but how about Theodora/Justinian on the Nika riots?

 

Justinian did what any ruler who wishes to ensure his continued rule would have/should have done in a similar situation. Excpet, the difference here is that Theodora wore the pants and had the balls in this event rather than her husband. She was his strongest supporter, (and with good reason obviously), but I think Justinian would not have been the man we know him to be had he not had such a strong, assertive and iron-fisted woman for a wife like Theodora.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Justinian did what any ruler who wishes to ensure his continued rule would have/should have done in a similar situation. Excpet, the difference here is that Theodora wore the pants and had the balls in this event rather than her husband. She was his strongest supporter, (and with good reason obviously), but I think Justinian would not have been the man we know him to be had he not had such a strong, assertive and iron-fisted woman for a wife like Theodora.

 

You know, for some reason now, I can't really say Justinian is like Nero without Theodora. There just isn't a Byzantine Nero with out the immense power of Justinian which can be manipulated by the madness of Theodora.

[Neos Dionysos]

 

 

Justinian did what any ruler who wishes to ensure his continued rule would have/should have done in a similar situation. Excpet, the difference here is that Theodora wore the pants and had the balls in this event rather than her husband. She was his strongest supporter, (and with good reason obviously), but I think Justinian would not have been the man we know him to be had he not had such a strong, assertive and iron-fisted woman for a wife like Theodora.

 

You know, for some reason now, I can't really say Justinian is like Nero without Theodora. There just isn't a Byzantine Nero with out the immense power of Justinian which can be manipulated by the madness of Theodora.

 

I wouldn't say she was mad... she was just one hell of an aggressive b****, who got her way and was able to mainpulate here husband on many occasions... even getting him to turn on his long time friend and confidant Belisarius... later on he kinda broke free of this and relations b/w quickly went to very good and when she passed away the two were agruably as close as brothers because Theodora was not around to drive a wedge into them.

[Theodosius]

Most of academia views 'The Secret History' as more of entertainment value than historical accuracy. The fact that we have a man who wrote so many books on Belisarius' campaigns and also on the public works of Justinian, (which he acclaims and proceeds to venerate Justinian for), and then suddenly comes out with this which in complete contrast to everything he had written before is cause to look at the account as speculative. There may have been an underlying reason to ruin them later in life for reasons of jealousy, intrigue or simply pent up hatred.

Firstly, let me thank you for the time you put aside to reply to me.

 

The edition that I am reading, as indicated in my original post, is the Penguin edition and is translated by G.A. Williamson (1981). He too, in his introduction, states what you have just written me and indeed does doubt much of the historicity of Procopius' record.

 

One fact which he does poignantly bring up, but which, unfortunately, does not dwell upon, is the fact that Procopius' book "Secret History" was never published in his own lifetime. Of course, to have done so would have spelt certain death as he died along with Justinian and Belisarius (I if recall correctly) in the same year. If he knew of his impending death, then he would have nothing to lose by a publication, but still, he kept it... secret.

 

I am not saying (after having unfortunately re-read my post now, I unfortunately did not make it clear enough) that I take Procopius' "account as gospel. But Williamson does indeed state that there is much there which could be close to the truth. He wrote thus:

Similar doubts have been cast on the trustworthiness of the record; but as we have seen, there is no real contradiction between the first work and the second. Procopius himself claimed that his account was 'unvarnished and essentially correct'. Gibbon had no doubts about this, and while criticizing the tone of The Secret History had no hesitation in reproducing its statements as objectively true, adding the comment, 'Even the most disgraceful facts, some of which had been tenderly hinted at in his public history, are established by their internal evidence, or the authentic monuments of the times.' Monuments and records abound, and while they constantly confirm the statements of Procopius they never subvert them. Onlyon the ground of incredibility or self-evident falsity can his statements be questioned...pp. 29-30

And, in fairness to what you wrote about the work being more of entertainment value than of true historical account, as well as what you allude to the account of Theodora's prodigal ways, by stating thus:

Theodora, if you do not beleive all the negativity of 'The Secret History' which in my opinion is laid out so thickly that you must question the truth of it ...

Williamson has this to say, though not directly to the above statement as asserted by yourself:

Of course the book contains exaggerations, some of which will strike the modern reader as aburd. p. 30

Neos Dionysos wrote:

The fact that we only have his accounts on many of these events also leaves us to question the truth of them since we cannot verify the vadility of them with other historians.

Indeed, this is an undeniable fact. The book, to the extent that I have currently read up to, postulates the theorem that most of those who would have been in a position to have written anything (ie. those who were learned... λόγιοι) were put to the sword. How true this is, is probably the crux of the matter anyhow.

Yet his building projects were not luxury, but more geared toward the betterment of the city overall and the most famous of which is the Hagia Sophia which still stands to today and is renowned as one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

Indeed, as his patronage of the most beautiful mosaic iconography adorning the Church of S. Vitale in Ravenna.

Would I consider him a Nero? Hardly, he instituted many reforms and laws to the administration of the empire and seems to have been an overall good ruler.

I think my assertion of an undecidedness regarding Theodosius' stature as becoming that of a Nero was possibly too strong. In any case, an equivalent need not be an exact reproduction of a forebear's actions, but within one's own particular context in time.

Theodora, if you do not beleive all the negativity of 'The Secret History' which in my opinion is laid out so thickly that you must question the truth of it, was good for Justinian.

Indeed, and I have answered this in a round about way in a previous paragraph of this post.

...she ... is considered a saint by many orthodox christians.

Yes, her memory is revered by Orthodoxy for her philanthropic efforts as well as her most striking repentance.

Also, Justinians persectuions of Christians was on a sect of Christianity, not the religion in general

Unless there was something I had not read into, I made the claim that Theodosius attacked pagans. Although I do recall Theodosius' suppresion of a sect of Christianity. I don't remember which one though..

 

In then end, some can argue Justinian did more harm than good by trying to retake the West, but given all of his actions and reforms and policies and even building projects he left Constantinople greater than he had received it and I would not equate him with the likes of Nero, afterall, a man who is sometimes called Justinian the Great is in no way a Nero.

 

Sometimes, one is forced to play at diabolus advocatus in order to learn more. I thank you for the opportunity. :-)

 

-edit-

 

bah, I borked the quote tags, what are they here? :-(

 

admin note; there seems to be a limit on how many times one can use quotes in a post, i made the last quote inverted, hope it makes sense...

Edited January 18, 2006 by Viggen

[Theodosius]

Viggen,

 

Thank you very much for cleaning up my post, everything looks as it should have looked. Apologies for the hassles.

 

 

 

@thread,

 

I really do hope that what I quote from Procopius' book is relevant to this thread, otherwise the moderators or admins may be do as they wish to this post.

 

On page 134 of the present book in question, Williamson provides a footnote to the question of how many people died during the reign of Justinian. Efforts are taken in Procopius' text to indicate that at least half of the purported deaths are due to the plague at that time.

 

Following is Procopius' assertion (although I do not provide in the following what Procopius stated about the plague):

 

To make any accurate estimate of the number of lives destroyed by this man would never, it seems to me, be within the power of any living being other than God. For sooner could one number all the sands than the hosts of men destroyed by this potentate. But making a rough estimate of the area which has been denuded of its inhabitants I suggest that a million million lost their lives.

p. 130.

 

Procopius then goes on to give a brief account of the "millions" of lives lost in Libya, as well as in Italy and, obviously, the plague. After this brief excursis, Williamson goes on to provide his footnote, where he writes the following:

 

It is impossible to say how many lives were lost during Justinian's reign. Gibbon thought that the number might have approached a hundred million. Procopius's million million (literally ten thousand times ten thousand times ten thousand) is no more intended to be taken literally than is St John's ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, or the thousands of ten thousands of Rebekah's progeny.

p. 134

 

Although Williamson does exhibit both sides of the coin (ie. the non-lietralist interpretation as well as Gibbon's 100 million assertion), he is obviously not in a posiiton to provide his own view as he is the translator, and is not providing an exegesis of the text. Would anyone here have more information on this issue? Is Gibbon's assertion pretty close to the mark? Far-fetched? I have the 3 volume series on Byzantium by Norwich (buried somewhere in the midst of my other books... long story) but I don't remember reading anything about it.

 

Again, apologies if this post should not have been included within this thread.

[Tobias]

I would advance the name Alexius IV Angelus. Perhaps he was not as bad as Nero, but he was obviously a devious double-dealer, and rather stupid into the bargain. He promised the Fourth Crusade a huge sum of money to install him on the Byzantine throne; when he reached Constantinople, he and his co Emperor, Isaac II, could barely raise half of this sum. He then told the Crusaders he would do no more, and he was eventually killed, thus establishing the Latin Empire. He was motivated by greed and lust for power, and was towards the end rather unstable; a mere usurper. There is no denying the terrible damage he inflicted on the empire; perhaps the second fatal blow was administered thanks to him.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Tobias

[Honorius]

I would advance the name Alexius IV Angelus. Perhaps he was not as bad as Nero, but he was obviously a devious double-dealer, and rather stupid into the bargain. He promised the Fourth Crusade a huge sum of money to install him on the Byzantine throne; when he reached Constantinople, he and his co Emperor, Isaac II, could barely raise half of this sum. He then told the Crusaders he would do no more, and they killed him, thus establishing the Latin Empire. He was motivated by greed and lust for power, and was towards the end rather unstable; a mere usurper. There is no denying the terrible damage he inflicted on the empire; perhaps the second fatal blow was administered thanks to him.

 

 

er...Tobias the crusaders didnt kill Alexius IV. Alexius V (Murtzuphlus) had him killed.. the leader of the anti western party

[Neos Dionysos]

It is impossible to say how many lives were lost during Justinian's reign. Gibbon thought that the number might have approached a hundred million. Procopius's million million (literally ten thousand times ten thousand times ten thousand) is no more intended to be taken literally than is St John's ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, or the thousands of ten thousands of Rebekah's progeny.

p. 134

 

Although Williamson does exhibit both sides of the coin (ie. the non-lietralist interpretation as well as Gibbon's 100 million assertion), he is obviously not in a posiiton to provide his own view as he is the translator, and is not providing an exegesis of the text. Would anyone here have more information on this issue? Is Gibbon's assertion pretty close to the mark? Far-fetched? I have the 3 volume series on Byzantium by Norwich (buried somewhere in the midst of my other books... long story) but I don't remember reading anything about it.

 

Again, apologies if this post should not have been included within this thread.

 

 

Indeed, I too have not seen that in any of Norwich's books nor any thus far in Treadgolds. I do remember hearing of Justiinians' persecutions of (again I cannot remember exactly which), certain sects of Christianity. What I do know, is that his reconquest of Italy did more damange to the land, administration and infrastructure than anything the Goths had done and he can be blamed for destroying the old Roman system there by his reconquest. Also known is that Justinian had no trouble recruiting for the army, this is shown in other texts by Pat Southern suggesting that the overral treatment of the people, the taxations, thier daily life must have been pretty decent if not good to facilitate them voluntarrily joining the ranks of the army to go off on campaign, something that eariler emperors had to force people to do an/or hire barbarians to do.

[Philhellene]

I do remember hearing of Justiinians' persecutions of (again I cannot remember exactly which), certain sects of Christianity.

 

But by the end of his reign "Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine, and following a path untrodden by the apostles and fathers, became entangled among thorns and briers" (Evagrius, IV, 39). By the way, Theodora was monophysite, that`s why he didn`t persecute them seriosely, and even helped them, but I think his point of view on the Nestorians was different.

 

Also known is that Justinian had no trouble recruiting for the army...

 

Don`t forget how Belisarius defended Constantinople against Huns (end of Justinian`s reign)! See Agathius (book 5)! There were no serios forces to fight.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Philhellene

[Tobias]

er...Tobias the crusaders didnt kill Alexius IV. Alexius V (Murtzuphlus) had him killed.. the leader of the anti western party

 

Let us not quibble over details old fellow

[Honorius]

er...Tobias the crusaders didnt kill Alexius IV. Alexius V (Murtzuphlus) had him killed.. the leader of the anti western party

 

Let us not quibble over details old fellow

 

 

i know sorry tobias ....im sure you wouldve done the same

[Tobias]

Yeah perhaps - it was a lapse in detail; i was half asleep when i typed that

It is certainly true that Theodora should be considered as the Byzantine's Nero - especially if half the stories about her sexual acrobatics are true, as well as her treatment of the Empire's best General, Belisarius

Edited January 21, 2006 by Tobias