3 ms·
The reign of Justinian is often regarded as one of the worst periods to be alive. In 532 AD, the Nika riots erupted, followed by the devastating plague of Justi
by bobosha 2y ago
The reign of Justinian is often regarded as one of the worst periods to be alive. In 532 AD, the Nika riots erupted, followed by the devastating plague of Justinian in 541-542 AD, which claimed nearly half of the population. This era was further marred by the famine resulting from the volcanic eruption in 536 AD.
- skybrian 2y agoI’m reading a history of the eastern Roman empire where the author points out that history keeps going after the plague without the consequences one would expect, which wouldn’t be true if it were as bad as some ancient writers claimed. So, it’s unclear but possibly somewhat exaggerated?
- its_ethan 2y agoI have it on good authority (twitter) that, in fact, 2024 is actually the worst period to be alive.
- bwanab 2y agoNot to mention that Justinian largely bankrupted the state's coffers that Anastasius had so carefully built up in his misguided attempt to reconquer the western part of the empire then proceeded to blame everything on his general Belisarius.
- panick21_ 2y agoWhy was it 'misguided'. Saying it was 'misguided' is only evident historically. The Roman empire had fractured many times before. And has always been put together. So why would the Roman government think it couldn't be done again? And he was also pretty successful in doing it, returning North Africa, parts of Spain and most of Italy. Its just that further Germanic invasion came and reversed some of those gains. And the Persian were a contentious problem as well.
- nemo 2y agoThe Gothic Wars left Italy devastated and earned the long term enmity of people living on the peninsula who sometimes preferred the Germanic warlords to the bloodless sociopaths ruling out of Constantinople, opening a wedge that would continue to sow division over the centuries. Those wars depopulated the remnants of Rome that had persisted through the prior sacks, and left Italy even more defenseless against future invasions. Justinian had to destroy Rome to save it.
- panick21_ 2y agoAll statements about what people there wanted is pretty much speculation. And often these statements were later simply asserted by later historians. The initial invasion didn't actually depopulate the Peninsula. It was reconquered but then new invasion from new Germanic people started again. And of course the Roman Empire is gone try to defend Rome and Italy. Again, this is only obvious in retrospect and had it worked, we would remember it differently. And it had worked many times in the past.
- nemo 2y agoYou really don't need to make excuses for Justinian's incompetence, but if you want to, have at it.
- panick21_ 2y agoGiven the amount of wars he won and the territory they still had after he was done, he clearly wasn't incompetent. Africa remained an important part of the empire for centuries for example.
- nemo 2y agoThe overextension of Byzantine territory under Justinian led to later collapse, and in the end harmed the Romans and (along with the brutality of the Roman tax farmers) was one of the key steps that paved the way towards the Caliphate's conquests. Justinian did valuable things, his legal work left a constructive lasting mark. His architectural work was lovely but left Rome bankrupt and his foolish conquests (pursued under false pretexts and open lies) left Rome worse off by any humane measures. He was a disaster for the Romans who suffered through his reign and past it. Justinian planted the seeds of both Rome's expansion and collapse and his policies in the Italic peninsula were catastrophic.