Why Justinian wasn't the greatest Byzantine Emperor

[edyzmedieval]

Here's why:

Justinian completely destroyed the finances of the state because his ambition of reconquering the old Roman territories was too big. He left the coffers empty, and the empire was too stretched too face the attacks of their enemies.....

I chose Vasile II the Macedonian because he was a complete genius on all matters. Remarkable administrator and a genial commander. He made the Byzantine Empire an international powerhouse and left the coffers full.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*whine* Corpus Iuris Civilis *whine*

[edyzmedieval]

So?! It's not enough.

Plus, the Corpus Iulis Civilis had many mistakes.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would say 'inconsistensies' rather than mistakes. It is the culmination of a thousand years of Roman learned legal tradition. And the basis for the rediscovery of law as a science in the 11th century. It was the start of the European university - law faculties, not theology faculties are the oldest. Wherever Roman law made it's glorious re-entry, universities sprang up. Western law was formed by it, inspired by it or adapted from it. Even the development of the common law zones in England owes a lot to it.

In the words of Mommsen, the great 19th century German Jurist:
'Rome conquered the world three times. First, by it's legions. Then, by Christianity. Lastly, by it's law.'

The legions are long gone. We're working hard on driving the bishops back to Rome. But the legacy of Justinians Code will endure.

[AntiochusIII]

By Vasile II do you mean Basil II "Slayer of the Bulgars"? The one who annihilated the first Bulgar kingdom and conquered Armenia?

[edyzmedieval]

By Vasile II do you mean Basil II "Slayer of the Bulgars"? The one who annihilated the first Bulgar kingdom and conquered Armenia?

Yeah....

Many names.....

[Kraxis]

Vasile the Macedonian... Hmm... I think I have settled the matter as to why he is called that rather than Basil. His name is modern Greek for his more ancient name. 'B' becomes 'V', which also is the basis for the rather interesting case of Lesbos (Lesvos).

[AntiochusIII]

So it's Lesvian rebels for RTW's Pergamum then, eh? :)

I still think Justinian was the greatest Byzantine Emperor. Sure, there is no denying that Basil was the greatest emperor of the Macedonian dynasty, and that he succeeded more than most emperors ever did. However, if one view it this way, the annexation of Armenia destroys the buffer state that stood between the empire and the Islamic powers for centuries. If Armenia was intact, then the events surrounding the arrival of the Seljuks could've been different, and Asia Minor may continued to be in the empire's hands. Besides, Justinian's legacy was not of personal abilities, but of charisma and endless ambition. The Corpus Iulis Civilis, known more commonly as the Justinian code, laid the basis of modern law. Something VERY important in establishing and stabilizing the nation-states of Europe that rose out of the Middle Ages and brought the West the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. Besides, any competent heir to Justinian's empire could've held on to the empire and refilled the treasury without too much difficulty. Constantinople, after all, was one of the most important trading centers in the world at the time.

[Pindar]

What is the distinction being made between Rome and Byzantine Empires here? Most accounts I am familiar with (that make the distinction) do not place Justinian in the Byzantine tradition. The standard I use, and I think is a generally shared view, is to draw the line with the emergence of a Greek, as opposed to Latin model. A simple example would be the declaration of Greek as the offical language of state (civil service, army etc.) or the use of the Greek Basileus (king) instead of Imperator Caesar or Augustus as the title for the sovereign. This was done by Heraclius in the Seventh Century.

[Kraxis]

So it's Lesvian rebels for RTW's Pergamum then, eh? :)
Sure, if you want to demand that they are spelled in modern Greek rather than in ancient Greek, where beta did make a 'b' sound.
The point I made is that people often get confused that they can't find a Lesbos in Greece, it is after all a very famous island. But that is because 'b' as a sound doesn't exist in modern Greek.

[edyzmedieval]

Justinian's legacy didn't last long because the empire was way over-stretched. Basil's ingenous ideas of fortifying the borders with dozens of castles proved important for the empire, because it could cling on to Syria, Mesopotamia, Antioch, Edessa and other oriental provinces.

They both had at least 1 thing in common: incompetent successors.(for a short time, and even for a long time, 1025-1081)

[Knight Templar]

Did anyone mention Heraclius? IMO, he was the greatest Byzantine emperor

[caesar44]

Heaklios was good , but Iustinianus was the best , think of it , to take Rome from the "Barbarians" about 80 years after it fell... his code , his wife... ~;)

[Geoffrey S]

It's one thing to conquer territories (which Justinian didn't do personally) from enemies, it's another thing entirely to hold on to those regions. With the amount of troops commited to retaking northern Africa and Italy there wasn't really any chance of retaining those areas, so in my opinion these actions count against Justinian since they weren't realistic in the long term.

[edyzmedieval]

It's one thing to conquer territories (which Justinian didn't do personally) from enemies, it's another thing entirely to hold on to those regions. With the amount of troops commited to retaking northern Africa and Italy there wasn't really any chance of retaining those areas, so in my opinion these actions count against Justinian since they weren't realistic in the long term.

I agree.

Basil II was from the generation of the soldier-emperors. He participated at the battles.

[Azi Tohak]

I think it is sad John Tzimisces did not live longer. I believe he could have done well. Of course, since he was right before Basil II, maybe that would have hurt or maybe even helped Basil's legacy (civil wars prevented?).

Heraclius was amazing. He just lived too long. Kaegi's book on him is great... but horribly repetitive.

Personally, yes, I do not think Justinian I was not the greatest. He did an enormus amount... but hammering his own finances (and how he treated Belasarius...) takes him out of the lead.

Azi

[Geoffrey S]

Personally, yes, I do not think Justinian I was not the greatest. He did an enormus amount... but hammering his own finances (and how he treated Belasarius...) takes him out of the lead.
I was kind of wondering about Belisarius. Obviously, I've read Robert Graves' novel on the general but am uncertain as to how truthful it was with regards to the emperor's treatment of Belisarius, or in fact much of the negative portrayel of Justinian. Anyone got some pointers on this?

[Steppe Merc]

Belisarius "lost" to the Sassanian Azarethes. The Sassanian victory was questionable, due to the large amount of casualties and little to show for it, but Belisarius was stripped of comand due to it, despite the fact he probably saved the army from a total defeat.

[nokhor]

my personal opinion of the greatest of roman/byzantine emperors is unquestionably diocletian. though he came to power under at best-suspicious and at worst-heinous circumstances; he saw like no other emperor ever did, the fundamental flaw of the roman state which was the lack of an orderly transfer of power through succession. most 'dynasties' were lucky to last through 3 generations, and every competent general inevitably became a threat to the throne. diocletian tried to create a meritocracy with the trappings of 'adoptions' 'marriages' and 'generalship' and 'sons' succeeding 'fathers' all thrown in to strengthen it. that the tetrachy failed was through no fault of his own, but rather due to the chaotic nature of the top rungs of roman culture. and of course constantine the great had to screw up the whole tetrachy by illegaly succeding to his father's power in his quadrant.

another reason i admire diocletian was that he voluntarily gave up absolute power and retired, and when the backstabbings, betrayals and civil wars broke out again after ambitious men had wrecked the system he had tried to implement, he refused to rejoin the fray after the empire was offered to him again.

[AntiochusIII]

I disagree that Diocletian is a "Byzantine" emperor since that is more or less synonymous with "Eastern Roman" emperor; and Diocletian is even before Constantine (when Constantinople was founded) and Theodosius, who held the throne of the entire Roman empire. The Byzantine term didn't even existed in the minds of the later Eastern Roman emperors. The split between Arcadius and Honorius (am I confused with somebody else or not..) is, IMO, the start of the "Byzantine" empire.

I wonder what will happen to the Byzantine empire if Heraclius was the immediate successor of Justinian, instead of all those incompetent weaklings ruling between them. Heraclius was more unfortunate than incapable to face the Islamic expansion "on his deathbed."

Justinian's legacy still lasted much longer than Basil, though. Even though he was clearly over-ambitious for his (and his empire's) own good.

I wonder if any emperors after Alexius I Comnenus could be counted as "good/competent" Byzantine emperors at all.

[edyzmedieval]

Alexius I Comneni(Comneni or Comnenos in latin) can be regarded as a good emperor.

Justinian really gets a huuge minus by demoting Belisarius because he lost one battle. Big deal, it wasn't the importance as Manzikert. And even if it was, Manzikert could have been reverted if the Byzantines had competent emperors.

[caesar44]

It's one thing to conquer territories (which Justinian didn't do personally) from enemies, it's another thing entirely to hold on to those regions. With the amount of troops commited to retaking northern Africa and Italy there wasn't really any chance of retaining those areas, so in my opinion these actions count against Justinian since they weren't realistic in the long term.

So you are judging him for his operations that he did after he diad ?... ~:eek:

[caesar44]

It's one thing to conquer territories (which Justinian didn't do personally) from enemies, it's another thing entirely to hold on to those regions. With the amount of troops commited to retaking northern Africa and Italy there wasn't really any chance of retaining those areas, so in my opinion these actions count against Justinian since they weren't realistic in the long term.



(which Justinian didn't do personally) - So churchill was no great (also) ?

[Geoffrey S]

So you are judging him for his operations that he did after he diad ?...
Not really. Justinian ordered conquests with insufficient troops which could not realistically be retained for any period of time. This is lack of judgement on his part, and not indicative of a great emperor.


(which Justinian didn't do personally) - So churchill was no great (also) ?
Quite aside from the fact I've never mentioned Churchill in this debate, Churchill was considered great for other reasons. He led the country in a time of war and crisis, but did not conduct the actual warfare and thus credit for victories in for instance Africa goes to generals like Montgomery rather than Churchill, and justifiably so. Many claims as to Justinian being the greatest mention the conquests of north Africa and Italy, which were achieved by his generals despite rather than because of their emperor; these conquests can't truely be contributed to Justinian and hence don't count to any perceived greatness.

[Advo-san]

Vasile the Macedonian... Hmm... I think I have settled the matter as to why he is called that rather than Basil. His name is modern Greek for his more ancient name. 'B' becomes 'V', which also is the basis for the rather interesting case of Lesbos (Lesvos).
Why is Lesvos an interesting case? BTW my cousin's name is Vasilios. It is written and spelled exactly like Vasil the II of the macedonian dynasty.

[nokhor]

I disagree that Diocletian is a "Byzantine" emperor since that is more or less synonymous with "Eastern Roman" emperor; and Diocletian is even before Constantine (when Constantinople was founded) and Theodosius, who held the throne of the entire Roman empire. The Byzantine term didn't even existed in the minds of the later Eastern Roman emperors. The split between Arcadius and Honorius (am I confused with somebody else or not..) is, IMO, the start of the "Byzantine" empire.

I wonder what will happen to the Byzantine empire if Heraclius was the immediate successor of Justinian, instead of all those incompetent weaklings ruling between them. Heraclius was more unfortunate than incapable to face the Islamic expansion "on his deathbed."

Justinian's legacy still lasted much longer than Basil, though. Even though he was clearly over-ambitious for his (and his empire's) own good.

I wonder if any emperors after Alexius I Comnenus could be counted as "good/competent" Byzantine emperors at all.


there are 4 emperors that people have been arguing about for decades as to which one exactly was the first 'byzantine' emperor.

1. diocletian because he threw away the last vestiges of roman republicanism that was used by emperors. no more of the censor, consul, first among equals stuff. he was the first one to use the term despot, and began a lot of the bowing and scraping and mysticism surrounding the emperor crap that byzantium is famous for. he threw away the pretense that had existed till then that the emperor was still nothing more than basically a super senator.

2. constantine because he moved the capital and brought in christianity.

3. justininan because that was the last time there was a serious attempt to retake the west.

4. heracles because greek became the language of the court and the term basileus was used.

of course people have been arguing about this for decades and a lot of it is irrelevant since it was more of an evolution anyway than an abrupt change from roman to byzantine.

[Knight Templar]

I wonder if any emperors after Alexius I Comnenus could be counted as "good/competent" Byzantine emperors at all.

I think yes, these:

John II Comnenus, son of Alexius, conquered Serbia and Antioch (duke of Antioch was his vasal 1137-42), finally defeated Pechenegs. Described by his contemporaries and later Byzantines as wise and capable ruler.

Manuel I Comnenus, son of John II, capable and educated emperor, athough over-ambitious and too tempered. Conquered new lands from Hungarian king Stephen III, all rulers of crusader states were his vasals.

John III Ducas Vatatzes (sorry if it is a wrong spelling), greatest emperor of Nicaea, educated, doubled the territory of Nicaean empire (mostly by conquering new lands in Europe), he had wise economic politics.

Michael VIII Paleologus, excellent diplomat, gained new lands for empire. Stopped all attempts of Manfred and Charles Anjou (both Sicilian kings) to conquer empire. But, like Manuel I, he was over-ambitious.

Some later emperors, like John VI, Manuel II and COnstantine XI, were also very capable, but they couldn't stop decline of empire.

[caesar44]

there are 4 emperors that people have been arguing about for decades as to which one exactly was the first 'byzantine' emperor.

1. diocletian because he threw away the last vestiges of roman republicanism that was used by emperors. no more of the censor, consul, first among equals stuff. he was the first one to use the term despot, and began a lot of the bowing and scraping and mysticism surrounding the emperor crap that byzantium is famous for. he threw away the pretense that had existed till then that the emperor was still nothing more than basically a super senator.

2. constantine because he moved the capital and brought in christianity.

3. justininan because that was the last time there was a serious attempt to retake the west.

4. heracles because greek became the language of the court and the term basileus was used.

of course people have been arguing about this for decades and a lot of it is irrelevant since it was more of an evolution anyway than an abrupt change from roman to byzantine.

I would say Arcadius , the first Eastern Roman empire after the final separation in 395 ce

[Idomeneas]

Sure, if you want to demand that they are spelled in modern Greek rather than in ancient Greek, where beta did make a 'b' sound.
The point I made is that people often get confused that they can't find a Lesbos in Greece, it is after all a very famous island. But that is because 'b' as a sound doesn't exist in modern Greek.


Just for the record the ''b'' sound never existed in greek represented by a letter. Not now not ever in any local dialect or common greek as attic. Even today we have diphthongs (sp) to represent sounds as ''b'' and ''d''. We put ΜΠ and ΝΤ. During the ages some words maybe altered or evolved but the basic skeleton of language as grammar and letter sounding remained the same. As proofs we can have various parts of Hellenic language that ''froze'' in time. Such as eclesiastic hymns being sung still in the language of the evangels or Pontic dialect and various more that resample more to ancient forms.

So Lesbos was always Lesvos ~:). I dont know how those huge transliterate errors evolved. Propably after renaisance. Because if in greek language ''b'' and ''v'' existed the same time and ''b'' according to your opinion was ''ΜΠ'' then were is ''B''? there s no letter left for that sound. We have all those different ''o'' and ''i'' you think we wouldnt have a letter for a sound that we used all the time? ~:). Thanks to those mistakes most of foreigners that study greek even scholars and havent spent some time here sound like i dont know what. But dont tell them it hurts their pride ~;)

The missunderstanding imo started when greek alphabet had to be adjusted in foreign languages that had completely different pronounciation rules. Many things were altered to fill the needs and became so familiar to them after that (and with Greek people busy with big problems) it was impossible to accept that the same letter had a completely different sounding.

Sorry for the intervention but since i ve seen similar opinions times before i thought that it would be better to clear things out

[AntiochusIII]

I think yes, these:

John II Comnenus, son of Alexius, conquered Serbia and Antioch (duke of Antioch was his vasal 1137-42), finally defeated Pechenegs. Described by his contemporaries and later Byzantines as wise and capable ruler.

Manuel I Comnenus, son of John II, capable and educated emperor, athough over-ambitious and too tempered. Conquered new lands from Hungarian king Stephen III, all rulers of crusader states were his vasals.

John III Ducas Vatatzes (sorry if it is a wrong spelling), greatest emperor of Nicaea, educated, doubled the territory of Nicaean empire (mostly by conquering new lands in Europe), he had wise economic politics.

Michael VIII Paleologus, excellent diplomat, gained new lands for empire. Stopped all attempts of Manfred and Charles Anjou (both Sicilian kings) to conquer empire. But, like Manuel I, he was over-ambitious.

Some later emperors, like John VI, Manuel II and COnstantine XI, were also very capable, but they couldn't stop decline of empire.Ah yes, I forgot Manuel Comnenus, the Pyrrhus of the Byzantines. Thank you. :bow: Now that I know their names I can find their details on my own much easier about the emperors of the Byzantine empire after Alexius I.

It is also unfortunate of the empire that the emperors in charge during the fall of the Seljuks by the Mongols and the temporary devastation of the Ottomans by Tamerlane weren't capable enough to take advantage of the situation fully.

[conon394]

Idomeneas

You do realize you are contradicting pretty much the consensus opinion of modern scholarship on how ancient Greek sounded.

This link as a nice concise page on the evidence for beta not pronounced as it currently is in Modern Greek.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/lan/betapro.htm

[Idomeneas]

Idomeneas

You do realize you are contradicting pretty much the consensus opinion of modern scholarship on how ancient Greek sounded.

This link as a nice concise page on the evidence for beta not pronounced as it currently is in Modern Greek.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/lan/betapro.htm

I have no objection to discuss this matter. According to that theory that overlooks parts of greek language that remained frozen the B was b. Ok and what letter produced the v sound? since it existed. Dont you think that a language that has an excess number of letters for even slight diferences between ''o'' (omikron and omega) would assign a letter to v sound?

Also there is the Γ case. All foreigners pronounce it G when we make different sound. For example the name ΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ. You say GIANNIS when we say YANNIS. I read the examples on that page but i cants ay that they where so solid as common attic surviving through eclesiastic rituals. A change as much important as this would take many centuries to occur. Plus that try to read an ancient text with B as b Δ as d and Γ as G. It just doesnt flaw and not just to me to anybody.

by the way the author of that article is not linguist not even ancient greek professor.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Here's why:

Justinian completely destroyed the finances of the state because his ambition of reconquering the old Roman territories was too big. He left the coffers empty, and the empire was too stretched too face the attacks of their enemies.....

I chose Vasile II the Macedonian because he was a complete genius on all matters. Remarkable administrator and a genial commander. He made the Byzantine Empire an international powerhouse and left the coffers full.

I agree to point one - that Justinian wasn't the greatest Byzantine emperor, but am not sure about point two.

- Corpus Iuris Civilis was just writing down and collecting well-known tradition into one package, so very little of the contents of it should be attributed to Justinian.

- The over-extending of Byzantine forces of course led to unnecessary casualties and demoralization, with a weakened army as the result. Furthermore, it started quarrel with formerly neutral people, which is never a good thing. Most of the territories were, not in any way surprising, lost immediately after his death.

- The economical screw-up as a result of the over-ambitious conquest attempts.

- Conquering several areas in what could be consider the sphere of interest of western roman "successors" wasn't good for the quarrel with western Christianity and could, to some extent, be considered one of the main reasons for the 1204 problems, but Manzikert was probably the worst. Still, a very unwise thing to do.

So, diplomacy, military strategy and economy was quite uselessly handled by Justinian I. His collecting of existing laws and juridical tradition with few changes into one package is hardly something he can be considered a genius for. It's even probable that earlier attempts at it had been made. Besides, the failure to see how complex and therefore unpractical the laws had become when they had to be so many, and the lack of exact definitions (although definitions were good compared to any standards of it's time, I guess) is something Justinian ought to be ashamed of. If the laws aren't simple enough to be possible for every single citizen to know in it's whole, then the laws are bad. Justinian, being the first to assemble the laws in this way, failed to see this, which is the root of the custom to have laws of such a complex, and unpractical, nature. So one can hardly call him a juridical genius either.

[conon394]

by the way the author of that article is not linguist not even ancient greek professor.

True, but his page is essentially a summary of the standard view, and he has very correctly noted his sources. The classical historians and linguists who wrote the texts on Ancient Greek I still have lying about agree 100% with view presented by the linked page.


I have no objection to discuss this matter. According to that theory that overlooks parts of greek language that remained frozen the B was b. Ok and what letter produced the v sound? since it existed. Dont you think that a language that has an excess number of letters for even slight diferences between ''o'' (omikron and omega) would assign a letter to v sound?

No. English insists on spelling cat with a c when it has a much more appropriate letter in k to do the job. Considering that the Classical alphabet had only been around 300 years and showed considerable variation and flux both in those 300 years and across the various dialect groups; I don’t think appeals to internal logic are very weighty.

Don’t forget that in effect what we are taking about is just Ionic script and the Attic dialect. Only the Ionic script features the over emphasis on ‘o’. The Corinthian script of the classical period lacked two of the characters used in the ionic script getting along with no omega or sigma. The Attic script also lacked the omega.


i cants ay that they where so solid as common attic surviving through eclesiastic rituals

Ecclesiastic rituals would post date the Greek in question archaic and Classical Greek by as much as 1000 years or more. And they also post date the first to second century AD when the switch from b to v pronunciation is understood to have occurred.


Plus that try to read an ancient text with B as b Δ as d and Γ as G. It just doesnt flaw and not just to me to anybody.

Seems fine to me, but of course I did not grow up using the Greek alphabet with a different pronunciation. Your basically asserting a subjective argument. The rough equivalent to asserting that Cicero would not be pronounced Kikero in Classical Latin, because it would sound harsh to a Medieval Latin speaker or modern Italian speaker. Perhaps even a better comparison is how odd Classical Latin sounds to most English speakers when they start learning. Since English has so many Latin words ingrained in it the change in pronunciation often strikes students as not flowing or sounding odd.


A change as much important as this would take many centuries to occur

Maybe, but I don’t know that you can put any particular rule of thumb on how quickly a linguistic change takes to occur. In any case the body of evidence for attempting to adduce the sound of Ancient Greek is limited to largely the Attic dialect. The change in sound may well have been peculating in the Greek of Ionia or Sicily.

[Idomeneas]

True, but his page is essentially a summary of the standard view, and he has very correctly noted his sources. The classical historians and linguists who wrote the texts on Ancient Greek I still have lying about agree 100% with view presented by the linked page.



No. English insists on spelling cat with a c when it has a much more appropriate letter in k to do the job. Considering that the Classical alphabet had only been around 300 years and showed considerable variation and flux both in those 300 years and across the various dialect groups; I don’t think appeals to internal logic are very weighty.

Don’t forget that in effect what we are taking about is just Ionic script and the Attic dialect. Only the Ionic script features the over emphasis on ‘o’. The Corinthian script of the classical period lacked two of the characters used in the ionic script getting along with no omega or sigma. The Attic script also lacked the omega.



Ecclesiastic rituals would post date the Greek in question archaic and Classical Greek by as much as 1000 years or more. And they also post date the first to second century AD when the switch from b to v pronunciation is understood to have occurred.



Seems fine to me, but of course I did not grow up using the Greek alphabet with a different pronunciation. Your basically asserting a subjective argument. The rough equivalent to asserting that Cicero would not be pronounced Kikero in Classical Latin, because it would sound harsh to a Medieval Latin speaker or modern Italian speaker. Perhaps even a better comparison is how odd Classical Latin sounds to most English speakers when they start learning. Since English has so many Latin words ingrained in it the change in pronunciation often strikes students as not flowing or sounding odd.



Maybe, but I don’t know that you can put any particular rule of thumb on how quickly a linguistic change takes to occur. In any case the body of evidence for attempting to adduce the sound of Ancient Greek is limited to largely the Attic dialect. The change in sound may well have been peculating in the Greek of Ionia or Sicily.


Lets take an example of what the author admits as proof of different B pronounciation. ''Cratinus (5th c. BC), in a surviving fragment of comedy (in Dionysalexandros) states the following: "o d' hliqios wsper probaton bh bh legwn badizei" (and the fool goes about like a sheep saying "ba ba"). If beta is pronounced as [b] and eta as long [e], we get the sound attributed to the animal by contemporary Greeks ("beeh-beeh"). If the letters are pronounced as in Modern Greek, we get "vi-vi", which does not sound like a sheep at all, by any stretch of the imagination.''

Does this look as sufficient evidence? Why B had to be different and not the sheep imitated sound? I think the author and other researchers he agrees with are just trying to see what they want. He also states that some key letter pronounciation conveniently changed about 200 years before the gospels were writen. Now lets examine this.

We have what we call greek world expanding in all mediteranian, black sea coast and parts of central europe. Especially in east part of mediteranian and midlle east greek are the basic trading language as english is today. Even if a change like the one alleged occured how did it effected all these thousands of people using greek apart the mainland population? These things dont happen by clicking a switch ~:) .

The examples the author uses are not solid at all when you think how large part of worldwide(then) population used greek. IF any of that change happen it should be way before the A Greek colonisation not after 3/4 of the world that mattered in that time spoke greek. We are talking about major alteration and not only that a tendency to make pronountiation more difficult?
Cause thats the major flaw in foreigners speaking greek (there are bright exceptions offcourse) their Δ Γ & owels (sp)

I ll try to contact a linguist and provide some more arguements. In the mean time what other resource you have supporting the alteration theory?

[conon394]

Idomeneas

You seem to have ignored my last post (while citing it).


black sea coast and parts of central europe. Especially in east part of mediteranian and midlle east greek are the basic trading language as english is today

Not really until after Alexander’s conquest of Persia. Before that Akkadian, Aramaic, or Phoenician were probably just as common outside of the Aegean as a trade language.


Even if a change like the one alleged occured how did it effected all these thousands of people using greek apart the mainland population? These things dont happen by clicking a switch

I’m not really certain what your point is. But I would suggest that a significant shift in pronunciation is more likely rather then less as the Greek Koine emerged in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. After all the majority of speakers were now not native speakers, but the mass of traders, officials and educated elites of the Hellenist east.


IF any of that change happen it should be way before the A Greek colonisation not after 3/4 of the world that mattered in that time spoke greek

Don’t overestimate the influence of the Greek Koine. The Western Med was a Carthy and Roman preserve by the 3rd century BC. I doubt the Carthaginians had any incentive to use the Koine in their sphere of influence, and the Roman Empire’s policy was certainly one of Latin not Greek in the Western parts of the Empire.


Does this look as sufficient evidence?

Actually it does, last time I spent much time around sheep the noise they made defiantly started with a ‘ba’ sound. Neither Aristophanes nor Cratinus or their audience would be strangers to sheep; I doubt they would mis-characterize the noise.

But more generally as I noted I have never seen any classical historian or linguist or any text book on Ancient Greek fail to suggest that the Classical beta was not a ‘b’ sound. But if you want I will endeavor to compile a list of references…

[Romanus]

Justinians conquests were very profitable for the empire, Belisarius captured both the vandal and ostrogothic treasury, both wars thus paid for themselves. It was the plague that followed which was disastrous for the empire, the plague caused a populatio decline which meant less taxes.

[Kralizec]

I know shamefully little about most Byzantine emperors...except Justinian, whom I know a fair deal because I'm a law student :book:
First, consider his background: he was the son of a Serbian farmer! He'd have become one to, if it weren't for his uncle (forgot name) who was a great general and who introduced him into the Byzantine politics. After that though, he got where he got mostly by his own hard work. Now some points about his reign as emperor...

The Corpus Iuris Civilis- the digestes (or pandects), the codex Iiustianus and the elements (or institutiones) were a major hallmark in legal history. Making such a codification had been tried before, but always failed. The only consecutive achievement that came close was the code civil by Napoleon. This alone would be a superb achievement, fitting of the name "Great"...but it's not as if he made it himself. Tribonian and several other law professors did.

The Roman reconquest- another great achievement, even if only temporary, though it was the work of the generals especially Belisarius, and Justinian can even be said to have been counterproductive because he didn't use Belisarius to his full effect.

Hagia Sophia- Greeks today chiefly remember Justinian for this fantastic building. I hope to seee it one day when I get to Istanbul. You could say that Justinians reign was also the golden age of Byzantine architecture.

Nika riots- Justinian nearly lost the throne if it weren't for his wife Theodora (I have to admit I don't know the details). She probably would have been a better ruler then Justinian. Not bad at all for a former actress, who were considered akin to prostitutes in Byzantium.

What I'm trying to say that it was the people behind Justinian that really mattered, pretty much like with all rulers. His wife, Belisarius, Tribonian...the list goes on. I'd define a good leader as someone who makes the best use of the people he commands...so in the end, Justinian was not a particulary good ruler, but not a bad one either.

[Azi Tohak]

I think yes, these:

John II Comnenus, son of Alexius, conquered Serbia and Antioch (duke of Antioch was his vasal 1137-42), finally defeated Pechenegs. Described by his contemporaries and later Byzantines as wise and capable ruler.

Manuel I Comnenus, son of John II, capable and educated emperor, athough over-ambitious and too tempered. Conquered new lands from Hungarian king Stephen III, all rulers of crusader states were his vasals.

John III Ducas Vatatzes (sorry if it is a wrong spelling), greatest emperor of Nicaea, educated, doubled the territory of Nicaean empire (mostly by conquering new lands in Europe), he had wise economic politics.

Michael VIII Paleologus, excellent diplomat, gained new lands for empire. Stopped all attempts of Manfred and Charles Anjou (both Sicilian kings) to conquer empire. But, like Manuel I, he was over-ambitious.

Some later emperors, like John VI, Manuel II and COnstantine XI, were also very capable, but they couldn't stop decline of empire.

Thank you! I was just about to whip out my copy of John Julius Norwich books and go hunting for the list. But I think this about covers it. ~:cheers:

Azi

[Red Peasant]

Just for the record the ''b'' sound never existed in greek represented by a letter. Not now not ever in any local dialect or common greek as attic. Even today we have diphthongs (sp) to represent sounds as ''b'' and ''d''. We put ΜΠ and ΝΤ. During the ages some words maybe altered or evolved but the basic skeleton of language as grammar and letter sounding remained the same. As proofs we can have various parts of Hellenic language that ''froze'' in time. Such as eclesiastic hymns being sung still in the language of the evangels or Pontic dialect and various more that resample more to ancient forms.

So Lesbos was always Lesvos ~:). I dont know how those huge transliterate errors evolved. Propably after renaisance. Because if in greek language ''b'' and ''v'' existed the same time and ''b'' according to your opinion was ''ΜΠ'' then were is ''B''? there s no letter left for that sound. We have all those different ''o'' and ''i'' you think we wouldnt have a letter for a sound that we used all the time? ~:). Thanks to those mistakes most of foreigners that study greek even scholars and havent spent some time here sound like i dont know what. But dont tell them it hurts their pride ~;)

The missunderstanding imo started when greek alphabet had to be adjusted in foreign languages that had completely different pronounciation rules. Many things were altered to fill the needs and became so familiar to them after that (and with Greek people busy with big problems) it was impossible to accept that the same letter had a completely different sounding.

Sorry for the intervention but since i ve seen similar opinions times before i thought that it would be better to clear things out

Hi

I know that we are straying off-topic, but I was interested in your post because it challenges a basic concept of what I have studied about the development of Ancient Greek.

The pronunciations we know in English as 'B' and 'V' are very closely related, the first tending to morph into the second over time, a trait common to all Indo-European languages.

The scholarship, of my acquaintance, generally seems to accept that 'B'/Beta was pronounced as a harder plosive sound in 'Classical' Greek as in Lesbos, which became a softer fricative 'V', as in Lesvos, with the development of Koine Greek around 350-250 BC. Hence, Church/New Testament Greek from the very beginning would have pronounced beta as 'V'. Later they needed to represent the harder sounds again and so assigned two-letter consonant combinations to fill the void in the phonological space.

However, are you claiming that the 'V' sound was always there, and pre-existed the Koine? The consensus seems to indicate otherwise, and that the phonetic texture of Greek changed considerably between the fifth and third centuries. Not only that, but the metre of the language changed, affected by its shift from a tonal to a stressed nature.

Of course, such changes don't happen overnight as you know, and pre-Koine Greek had many dialects which developed independently from sometime in the 8thC BC. Maybe some of them developed or had the 'V' sound earlier than the Koine transition, as one can imagine that these things never happen smoothly or concurrently in different regions.

TBH, there is still much research to be done on the early development of Greek, as with all languages, so the subject is not a closed book by all means. The hard/plosive to soft/fricative transition of letters such as 'B'>>'V' and 'D'>>'Th', I thought was pretty much accepted by all classical scholars/linguists, but apparently not.

[Knight Templar]

It is also unfortunate of the empire that the emperors in charge during the fall of the Seljuks by the Mongols and the temporary devastation of the Ottomans by Tamerlane weren't capable enough to take advantage of the situation fully.

Actually, I read in one book about Byz history that empire, not emperors, was not strong enough to use Tamerlane's victory at Angora. It was so weak, small and it didn't have enough strength to re-become strong. Emperors couldn't do anything with it. Tamerlane actually gave 50 years of life to Empire. Without him, it would fall to Bayazid I.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Justinians conquests were very profitable for the empire, Belisarius captured both the vandal and ostrogothic treasury, both wars thus paid for themselves. It was the plague that followed which was disastrous for the empire, the plague caused a populatio decline which meant less taxes.

Even so, it spread the forces too thin and loss of the land was inevitable. He overextended extremely - just compare to the expansions of other Byzantine emperors before and after. Besides, those conquests were even less impressive because he was up against quite weak opposition at the time. The rise of a stronger power in the nearby area, which was later the case with the arabs/muslims, was also inevitable. He conquered a piece of land that was very hard to defend, especially as the conquests didn't exactly result in an increase in recruiting capabilities for the empire. And combine the need for more troops for defense, with the fact that the war only barely paid off, and the end-result is an economical loss.

[Horatius]

I don't understand why Justinian is considered great at all, the only thing he brought was literally depopulation and ruin to a prosperous empire.

The military conquests would be impressive, but they were done thanks to the generalship of Bellisarius, not Justinian.

As for the laws the only ones that could really be attributed to him are the "Justinian Code".

The only thing the Justinian Code did however was persecute jews, persecute Heretics like the Copts and the Arians (Followers of the priest Arius, not to be confused with the Nazi race theories).

That is literally all it did.

Do not forget this, when there was a riot in Constantinople he went to flee the city and yield it to the rioteers and he would have had his wife not interfered, which shows he was a coward.

His poor economics and persecution of religious minorities caused the destruction of what was before him the greatest economy in the world at the time.

His laws declaring persecution of Heretics, and Heavy Taxation caused the newly gained provinces of Sicily, Italy, and North Africa to turn from very loyal to rebellious. The Byzantine Army came in as Liberators, but thanks to the Justinian Code and his heavy taxation they left oppressors.

One final tidbit on Justinian he was also an ungrateful double crosser.

After the conquests he siezed all of Belisaurius' wealth and removed him from power, leaving him to spend the rest of his life as a beggar.

He took credit for conquests done by his generals, destroyed the empires economy, persecuted heretics and jews, taxed the loyalty out of the newly recaptured provinces, and ungratefully destroyed the man who made his conquests possible.

[edyzmedieval]

That's why I started this thread.

He was a complete idiot. If it wasn't for Belisarius, he wouldn't have had a great empire, and second, if it wasn't for Belisarius again, the whole empire would have revolted, starting with Constantinople. What has his wife done?! Nothing. She just called Belisarius, who made the job.

And how does Justinian repay him for saving his skin and his empire?! He dismisses him from the army, and confiscates his whole wealth, leaving him a complete beggar.

Justinian in my opinion, was one of the worst Byzantine Emperors.

Good job Horatius!!!!

[Rosacrux redux]

I think this post is redundant...

[Rosacrux redux]

Ah, there is also the little subject of "who's greater"... Justinian was not incompetent, nor idiot. He was one of the greatest emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, allthough not really a "Byzantine" one. He managed to gain back a large chunk of the lost empire, produced magnificent work of art and a monumental work on Law (that still is the basis of many legal systems all around). He was not the one who did the actual conquest though. Also, lots of the scheming was carried out by his wife (a wicked lady, that Theodora).

Vasilios "the Bulgar Slayer" was a great military leader (the greatest, along with Belisarius, Byzantium has produced) and a very sound administrator (much better than Justinian - he left a thriving economy and his incompetent successors managed to tear that down too in a few decades).

Both are great, I kinda sympathise more with Vasilios (after all, he was Greek, while Justinian was not ;) ) but I think Justinian's work stands more the trial of time than Vasilios' or any other Byzantine emperor.

And when considering "greatness", try also Heraclius, the first Greek emperor (=the first "true Byzantine" emperor, if you wish).

[Kralizec]

I don't understand why Justinian is considered great at all, the only thing he brought was literally depopulation and ruin to a prosperous empire.

The military conquests would be impressive, but they were done thanks to the generalship of Bellisarius, not Justinian.

As for the laws the only ones that could really be attributed to him are the "Justinian Code".

The only thing the Justinian Code did however was persecute jews, persecute Heretics like the Copts and the Arians (Followers of the priest Arius, not to be confused with the Nazi race theories).

That is literally all it did.

Do not forget this, when there was a riot in Constantinople he went to flee the city and yield it to the rioteers and he would have had his wife not interfered, which shows he was a coward.

His poor economics and persecution of religious minorities caused the destruction of what was before him the greatest economy in the world at the time.

His laws declaring persecution of Heretics, and Heavy Taxation caused the newly gained provinces of Sicily, Italy, and North Africa to turn from very loyal to rebellious. The Byzantine Army came in as Liberators, but thanks to the Justinian Code and his heavy taxation they left oppressors.

One final tidbit on Justinian he was also an ungrateful double crosser.

After the conquests he siezed all of Belisaurius' wealth and removed him from power, leaving him to spend the rest of his life as a beggar.

He took credit for conquests done by his generals, destroyed the empires economy, persecuted heretics and jews, taxed the loyalty out of the newly recaptured provinces, and ungratefully destroyed the man who made his conquests possible.


You got your stuff about his legal reforms all wrong.

First of all, you should be using the word corpus iuris civiles (I'll call it C.I.C after this). Wich contained:
The Codex Justinianus just contains all laws passed by individual emperors, constitiones, since about 200 except those wich were left out on purpose.
The Digesto contains writings of Rome's 5 greatest jurists and is arguably the most important part of the C.I.C.
The Institutiones wich was a manual for jurists at first, later received authority of law.

Before the C.I.C. Roman law was very inaccesable and untidy, Justinian ended all that. He succeeded where no other emperor had: gather all sources of Roman law, get rid of all irrelevant bits and combine them into one, exclusively legal package- a codification.
A greek translation of the C.I.C. wich appeared around 900 remained in use in Greece well beyond 1453 when Constantinople fell, since the Turks let their conquered people live by their own laws. When Greece gained its independence in the 19th century, it was promoted to official law of the nation until replaced by a new code shortly after WWII - so Justinians legal work remained in use there for 1400 years!

But it also played a part in the rest of Europe. When univesities started studying Roman law again, they used the C.I.C. made by Justinian.
When commerce started to bloom again, legal troubles arose because everybody lived by different laws and customs. To settle disputes between different nations, Roman law was used as ius commune, wich was provided by the Digesto (the heart of the C.I.C.)

I haven't even begun to mention the sheer significance the C.I.C. had on western civilization. So have some respect for Justinian, even if it's only for his legal works :bow:

[Kralizec]

Also, the Nika riots wich caused so much damage allowed him to pursue his greatest hobby: architecture. During his reign the Hagia Sophia and other marvelous buildings arose. It truly was the golden age of Byzantine architecture.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One can question the knowledge of justice of a man who persecuted jews and "heretics" and ordered his generals to attack loads of other innocent people.

Just out of curiosity, what was the so fanastic parts of C.I.C (using your abbreviation if you don't mind ~;) ).

[Kralizec]

What does his sense of justice have to do with it? He ordered the making of it, but didn't have a personal hand in it.

Like I said, the C.I.C. brought order into the chaos of the Roman law system, offered legal certainty in Greece for over 1400 years and made the rediscovery of Roman law in Europe possible, where they would use the C.I.C. too when increased trade and commerce required sophisticated laws.

It wasn't until the first national codifications like Napoleons civil code that his work lost importance.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=edyzmedieval]

Justinian in my opinion, was one of the worst Byzantine Emperors.


Hhhhmmm....

[Horatius]

You got your stuff about his legal reforms all wrong.

First of all, you should be using the word corpus iuris civiles (I'll call it C.I.C after this). Wich contained:
The Codex Justinianus just contains all laws passed by individual emperors, constitiones, since about 200 except those wich were left out on purpose.
The Digesto contains writings of Rome's 5 greatest jurists and is arguably the most important part of the C.I.C.
The Institutiones wich was a manual for jurists at first, later received authority of law.

Before the C.I.C. Roman law was very inaccesable and untidy, Justinian ended all that. He succeeded where no other emperor had: gather all sources of Roman law, get rid of all irrelevant bits and combine them into one, exclusively legal package- a codification.
A greek translation of the C.I.C. wich appeared around 900 remained in use in Greece well beyond 1453 when Constantinople fell, since the Turks let their conquered people live by their own laws. When Greece gained its independence in the 19th century, it was promoted to official law of the nation until replaced by a new code shortly after WWII - so Justinians legal work remained in use there for 1400 years!

But it also played a part in the rest of Europe. When univesities started studying Roman law again, they used the C.I.C. made by Justinian.
When commerce started to bloom again, legal troubles arose because everybody lived by different laws and customs. To settle disputes between different nations, Roman law was used as ius commune, wich was provided by the Digesto (the heart of the C.I.C.)

I haven't even begun to mention the sheer significance the C.I.C. had on western civilization. So have some respect for Justinian, even if it's only for his legal works :bow:


Justinians law codes or Ciceros?

Justinian just collected earlier Roman Legal findings, added in his anti-semitism and anti-Heretic bigotry and took credit.

He was an awful bigot who collected the works of other people.

He was able to do it because he had a great General called Belisarius who he back stabbedthat kept the Empire safe so he had the time, unlike other Emperors like John Comnenus, and the Empire was in much worse condition after him then before him.

Justinian was the first Eastern Roman Emperor to legislate against the jews.

Had it not been for his contribution to the Roman Laws the Empire would have been in much better shape.

His taxation of his newly gained provinces garunteed that they wouldn't stay in the Empire long, especially considering he was persecuting the populations for being Arians.

[Rodion Romanovich]

He ordered the making of it, but didn't have a personal hand in it.

I don't see that as a contra-argument? *cough* Hitler *cough* Stalin *cough* etc.



Like I said, the C.I.C. brought order into the chaos of the Roman law system, offered legal certainty in Greece for over 1400 years and made the rediscovery of Roman law in Europe possible, where they would use the C.I.C. too when increased trade and commerce required sophisticated laws.

It wasn't until the first national codifications like Napoleons civil code that his work lost importance.

See my earlier posts in this thread for an explanation.

[Kralizec]

@ Legio:
What I meant was, his sense of justice (or lack thereof) played no part in the making of the C.I.C., it was in the hands of Tribonian and other lawyers. So even if he was a fanatic, an asshole or whatever, it didn't affect the quality of the C.I.C.

@ Horatius:

"Justinians law codes or Ciceros?"
Cicero?!? Who mentioned him? What the hell does he have to do with it, he lived like 600 years before this timeframe!
It's true that Justinian himself mostly concerned himself with religious matters, and that he was brutal to certain minorities- though actually he attampted to reconciliate with the "Arian followers" you mentioned, or monophysists.


The both of you seem to think the C.I.C. was only cut and paste work, and you're missing the point.

The Codex Justinianus itself was not that impressive, as Theodosius already made a codex of imperial constitutiones, and it was merely updated and polished. But the Codex Justinianus was only a meagre part of Justinianus entire legal work, the Corpus Iuris Civililis.

The digesta was a far more important part. In the Roman Empire, there was besides the imperial constitutiones also another source of law simply called ius, wich were the opinions and writings of important jurists like Paulus, Modestinus etc, and were often made for single cases. At a later stage these writings got authority of law and could be used in court. There was a great amount of them, and nobody possesed them all. So you could go to court confidently of winning, then be "outgunned" by your opponent who had found a text of a jurist who was more reputable. Also it was difficult to know wether a text was a falsification or not, so on the whole this system offered little certaintiel.
An attempt of Theodosius to bring order in the sheer mass of ius failed, as an alternative it was decreed that only the works of 5 famous Roman jurists could be used, but that didn't truly end the problems mentioned. Justinians commission did succeed. It took 3 years, starting with 3 million lines of text, filtered it and reduced it to 150.000! It was an immense chore and they initially planned it to take over 10 years.

So the C.I.C., coming down to the essense was a single source of law, accesable to everybody that simplified court processions, served to make them more just, and was used in Europe for centuries to come.

Regardless of whatever else he did, is it so difficult to admit that the C.I.C. was an enormous achievement? :dizzy2:

[Rodion Romanovich]

@ Legio:
What I meant was, his sense of justice (or lack thereof) played no part in the making of the C.I.C., it was in the hands of Tribonian and other lawyers. So even if he was a fanatic, an asshole or whatever, it didn't affect the quality of the C.I.C.


Ok no problem, to that I can agree.

[Horatius]

@ Legio:
What I meant was, his sense of justice (or lack thereof) played no part in the making of the C.I.C., it was in the hands of Tribonian and other lawyers. So even if he was a fanatic, an asshole or whatever, it didn't affect the quality of the C.I.C.

@ Horatius:

"Justinians law codes or Ciceros?"
Cicero?!? Who mentioned him? What the hell does he have to do with it, he lived like 600 years before this timeframe!
It's true that Justinian himself mostly concerned himself with religious matters, and that he was brutal to certain minorities- though actually he attampted to reconciliate with the "Arian followers" you mentioned, or monophysists.


The both of you seem to think the C.I.C. was only cut and paste work, and you're missing the point.

The Codex Justinianus itself was not that impressive, as Theodosius already made a codex of imperial constitutiones, and it was merely updated and polished. But the Codex Justinianus was only a meagre part of Justinianus entire legal work, the Corpus Iuris Civililis.

The digesta was a far more important part. In the Roman Empire, there was besides the imperial constitutiones also another source of law simply called ius, wich were the opinions and writings of important jurists like Paulus, Modestinus etc, and were often made for single cases. At a later stage these writings got authority of law and could be used in court. There was a great amount of them, and nobody possesed them all. So you could go to court confidently of winning, then be "outgunned" by your opponent who had found a text of a jurist who was more reputable. Also it was difficult to know wether a text was a falsification or not, so on the whole this system offered little certaintiel.
An attempt of Theodosius to bring order in the sheer mass of ius failed, as an alternative it was decreed that only the works of 5 famous Roman jurists could be used, but that didn't truly end the problems mentioned. Justinians commission did succeed. It took 3 years, starting with 3 million lines of text, filtered it and reduced it to 150.000! It was an immense chore and they initially planned it to take over 10 years.

So the C.I.C., coming down to the essense was a single source of law, accesable to everybody that simplified court processions, served to make them more just, and was used in Europe for centuries to come.

Regardless of whatever else he did, is it so difficult to admit that the C.I.C. was an enormous achievement? :dizzy2:

I said Justinians law codes or Ciceros since Cicero is the most famous Roman Lawyer I could think of off the top of my head. I didn't mean it literally the point was though that the CIC was as you point out the edited writings of earlier Roman Jurists, that formed a central legal system.

Ok the CiC was a great achievement. But that brings me back to my first point, he had the luck to have some of the most skillful people his country produced, like Louis XIV, but like Louis his mission was war and persecution.

Don't forget though that thanks to his mismanagement of the Empire chaos soon took over the newly gained provinces, and later would take over other provinces as well, making the legal reforms there much less relevant.