Justinian vs. Theoderic

I just finished reading James O'Donnell's The Ruin of the Roman Empire, and it really put Justinian through the meat-grinder. I wonder how people here feel about the history he's written.

In the first place, he makes Theoderic, the Ostrogothic ruler of Italy at the turn of the sixth century, appear to have led a stable and even enlightened government for Italy. In his view, Theoderic was pretty much a fully assimilated Roman, and his during his rule, Italy got "back to normal" for a time, living a peaceful Roman life. His long, orderly reign was the most stable period Italy had seen in quite some time.

Eastern Emperor Anastasius I also comes off well in this history -- wise, prudent, leaving an Imperial treasury to Justin and Justinian with some 300,000 pounds of gold.

Justinian is depicted as a vainglorious, imprudent and under-educated/unintellectual ruler, whose military escapades spread imperial forces too thinly and wasted lots of resources needlessly. The campaign in Italy devestated the city of Rome (it passed between the Eastern Romans and Ostrogothic rulers a few times). It left behind insufficient forces to stop the Lombard invasions, which came shortly after.

O'Donnell also thinks Justinian's "my way or the highway" approach to religious orthodoxy was also a major misstep. Justinian insisted that the Empire uniformly embrace the orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon, to which the monophysite Christians of Syria and Egypt just wouldn't submit. He suggests that this did much to dislodge the loyalty of subjects there, and may have made Islam (which was much closer to the monophysite/one-nature spirit than Chalcedon's confusing Christology) more appealing when the Arab invasions came.

In the end, O'Donnell blames Justinian for ensuring that Italy would not be a united polity again for more than a thousand years, and for wrecking the city of Rome and its surviving institutions. Had Justinian left well enough alone, Italy might remained a viable Roman state for much longer, O'Donnell thinks.

I don't know how many here have read the book but what do you think of this way of looking at the Justinianic reconquests?

I just finished reading James O'Donnell's The Ruin of the Roman Empire, and it really put Justinian through the meat-grinder. I wonder how people here feel about the history he's written.

 

In the first place, he makes Theoderic, the Ostrogothic ruler of Italy at the turn of the sixth century, appear to have led a stable and even enlightened government for Italy. In his view, Theoderic was pretty much a fully assimilated Roman, and his during his rule, Italy got "back to normal" for a time, living a peaceful Roman life. His long, orderly reign was the most stable period Italy had seen in quite some time.

 

Eastern Emperor Anastasius I also comes off well in this history -- wise, prudent, leaving an Imperial treasury to Justin and Justinian with some 300,000 pounds of gold.

 

Justinian is depicted as a vainglorious, imprudent and under-educated/unintellectual ruler, whose military escapades spread imperial forces too thinly and wasted lots of resources needlessly. The campaign in Italy devestated the city of Rome (it passed between the Eastern Romans and Ostrogothic rulers a few times). It left behind insufficient forces to stop the Lombard invasions, which came shortly after.

 

O'Donnell also thinks Justinian's "my way or the highway" approach to religious orthodoxy was also a major misstep. Justinian insisted that the Empire uniformly embrace the orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon, to which the monophysite Christians of Syria and Egypt just wouldn't submit. He suggests that this did much to dislodge the loyalty of subjects there, and may have made Islam (which was much closer to the monophysite/one-nature spirit than Chalcedon's confusing Christology) more appealing when the Arab invasions came.

 

In the end, O'Donnell blames Justinian for ensuring that Italy would not be a united polity again for more than a thousand years, and for wrecking the city of Rome and its surviving institutions. Had Justinian left well enough alone, Italy might remained a viable Roman state for much longer, O'Donnell thinks.

 

I don't know how many here have read the book but what do you think of this way of looking at the Justinianic reconquests?

It's easy to verify that the popularity of Justinian is going down among UNRV members, especially in comparison to the scholar consensus some years ago; some of us have even changed his position as the "last Roman" for his own general Belisarius.

I have not read O'Donnell's book, which seems interesting indeed; I tend to agree with many of his conclusions as stated here.

I also think Theodoric I was a notable Romanized ruler; however, historically "Romanized" has never been the same as "Roman" for any true Roman; period.

After all, they used the word "Barbarian" with all its connotations for any alien, and there was a reason for that; chauvinism.

My own impression of Justinian as a ruler is far better than O'Donnel's; he performed some impressive deeds well beyond his mere military career; and even on that count, his score was not bad at all.

I entirely agree that the economic deeds of people like Anastasius (or Sulla, or Hadrian) should not be underestimated when compared with the military conquests of Justinian (o Caesar, or Trajan).

I also think that the utter devastation of Italy all along the Justinian Wars had significant long lasting consequences; but analogous to the paradigmatic scorpion of the fable, that was probably inherent to the Roman nature as a whole, more than just Jutinian or any other given individual.

Arguably, the same can be said about most (if not all) Roman conquerors; from Camillus to Heraclius, no Roman conquest had ever been truly "necessary".

Justinian was hardly the only or even the most radically intolerant Christian emperor; Christianity's intolerance as a whole in all likelihood made the Islamic conquest easier, but to be fair, if any historical revolution has ever been truly unpredictable, that was indeed Islam.

As historical speculations go ("what if?"), I certainly guess that had Islam not appeared at all (essentially from incidental reasons), the Roman empire (not "Byzantium", please!) might very well have been able to recover the western lost territories after Heraclius' splendid success in the East.

Theodoric got some good press from people paid to do that and, as a monument to well done propaganda, it still works. Theodoric conquered Italy with war and murder, he relegated romans to second class citizens, confiscated their lands, persecuted catholicism, killed the pope and some of the senatorial elite. I fail to see his greatness.

Justinian had the greatest quality of a leader: choosing great aides. His wife, the finance minister, the generals and the architects were all excellent. He conquered Africa, Italy and some of Spain proving the weakness and how unpopular the barbarian kings were and this will be again showed by the quick arab conquest of gothic Spain. If not for the plague he may have succeeded in reuniting the empire. He also built beautiful monuments and hundreds of fortifications.

Conquests don't necessary spread resources they usually add them, that's why states always tried to expand. The critics of his success embrace a post-colonial revisionism rather then understating what worked at that time, it was Justinian supposed to care when Italy became an unified nation-state?

Italy, Spain and Africa had been extremely rich and important for the empire and they could became again so. Recovering them was a very smart thing to do and romans did not leave this conquests without a fight, the last ones some 500 years later leaving a great legacy behind.

Blaming him for events 100 years later it's absurd. The arab conquests are related much more directly to the rebellion of Phocas and the devastating Persian War.

I just finished reading James O'Donnell's The Ruin of the Roman Empire, and it really put Justinian through the meat-grinder. I wonder how people here feel about the history he's written.

Thanks. What an interesting thesis. This is a book that I'm definitely putting on my wish list. On the surface, it's always seemed that the Byzantines under Justinian undermined what was left of the old Roman order in Italy. Who needs fiction when history is much more entertaining?

Theodoric got some good press from people paid to do that and, as a monument to well done propaganda, it still works. Theodoric conquered Italy with war and murder, he relegated romans to second class citizens, confiscated their lands, persecuted catholicism, killed the pope and some of the senatorial elite. I fail to see his greatness.

O'Donnell addressed this. Theoderic did what any aspirant Roman leader would have done, he says, and the precendents go way back. To compare, Augustus also won his position with war and murder, relegated the Senate to a secondary role in government, confiscated some land. Like Augustus, Theoderic's big "gift" to his country was ruling for a long time without much in the way of wars, famines or mishaps. This means a lot to average subjects.

Theodoric got some good press from people paid to do that and, as a monument to well done propaganda, it still works. Theodoric conquered Italy with war and murder, he relegated romans to second class citizens, confiscated their lands, persecuted catholicism, killed the pope and some of the senatorial elite. I fail to see his greatness.

 

O'Donnell addressed this. Theoderic did what any aspirant Roman leader would have done, he says, and the precendents go way back. To compare, Augustus also won his position with war and murder, relegated the Senate to a secondary role in government, confiscated some land. Like Augustus, Theoderic's big "gift" to his country was ruling for a long time without much in the way of wars, famines or mishaps. This means a lot to average subjects.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

It is hard for me to understand why a roman emperor is blamed for reconquering Rome. It has to do, I think, with the noble barbarian vs the corrupt byzantine stereotype rather then with the welfare of the population of Italy. The goths were already in turmoil and civil conflict and were actively persecuting catholics so roman soldiers were seen as saviors not enemies by most of the population.

Justinian was a roman, latin-speaking and catholic like the people of Italy, Africa and Spain so that was seen not as a conquest but as a liberation and the recovery of the roman ancestral lands from the hands of arian barbarians.

Crushing taxes, paid by the peoples of the reconquered Roman lands, were a featured of Justinian's reign:

"Naturally these great enterprises (architectual wonders, Hagia Sophia, etc.) demanded great expense. Justinian's subjects frequently complained of the heavy taxes; many people in the lands he conquered back thought that the glory of being once more Roman citizens was bought too dearly when they realized how much they had to pay to the Roman exchequer."

from the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08578b.htm

Small wonder that when the Byzantines attempted to retake Naples they were met with fierce opposition from its citizens.

"Before he could advance on Rome, Belisarius first had to take Naples to the south, which he invested in the summer of 536. After failing to persuade the populace to submit peacefully, he subjected the city to a month-long siege. Naples was so stubbornly defended that Belisarius began to despair of taking the place

All that said, it seems to me that O'Donnell's book is heavily one-sided and probably unfair to both rulers, to say the least.

The more I read and think about it, the more I agree that the "Great" title was well-earned by both rulers; they were both exceptionally strong characters with impressive deeds in military as well as civilian affairs.

In fact, Theodoric might well have been a model for Justinian, as the former died just a year before the latter got his throne.

From the perspective of their respective nations, almost all the good and bad points stated for one of them can be said about the other.

For their own agendas, their personal ambition was clearly first, their dynasty was later, their nations next and the well-being of the average Italian (related as it was to the local peaceful conditions) was evidently far, far, far behind anything else.

Our sources are scarce and in general terms heavily biased for or against any or both of them; it's indeed hard (maybe impossible) to determine which despot would have been considered more alien by the average Italian peasant, the German Arrian or the Greek from the remote Constantinople.

As stated by Kosmo, the political evolution of Italy centuries later was a complex issue and neither Theodoric nor Justinian could be blamed for it (or maybe thanked, because that same evolution was the motor of the Renaissance).

As stated by Kosmo, the political evolution of Italy centuries later was a complex issue and neither Theodoric nor Justinian could be blamed for it (or maybe thanked, because that same evolution was the motor of the Renaissance).

Both however could possibly be blamed for leaving Italy too weak to resist the Lombard invasions, which destroyed Roman material culture for good. Justinian could be the more culpable of the two in this respect.

As stated by Kosmo, the political evolution of Italy centuries later was a complex issue and neither Theodoric nor Justinian could be blamed for it (or maybe thanked, because that same evolution was the motor of the Renaissance).

Both however could possibly be blamed for leaving Italy too weak to resist the Lombard invasions, which destroyed Roman material culture for good. Justinian could be the more culpable of the two in this respect.

It's the never-ending story; under the same logic, any war could be blamed for leaving any country too weak to resist any further invansion ever, so arguably we may even blame the Neanderthals for the Gulf War.

Naturally, the goal of any invader has always been his own victory, not making the things easier for any third party; the latter is just a professional risk.

Besides, for the Gothic or for any other real war, one army is not enough; two opponents are required as a minimum.

Under the previous stated rationale, both sides might be equally blamed.

For example, if the Goths had not fought back against Justinian, Italy would have not been weakened against the Lombards.

Even more, a Lombard invasion could have devastated a gothic Italy as bad or even worse then it did to a roman one.

Even more, a Lombard invasion could have devastated a gothic Italy as bad or even worse then it did to a roman one.

And if the Lombards had been left undisturbed under rulers like Liutprand, they could well have developed a stable and prosperous state.

There are infinite possibilities, but we can be reasonably sure that what Italy mostly required was long-standing peace; any peace; a good reminder that the worst peace is usually better than the best war.

There are infinite possibilities, but we can be reasonably sure that what Italy mostly required was long-standing peace; any peace; a good reminder that the worst peace is usually better than the best war.

Italy eventually became the richest and the most developed part of Europe by the late Middle Ages without enjoying too much peace.

There are infinite possibilities, but we can be reasonably sure that what Italy mostly required was long-standing peace; any peace; a good reminder that the worst peace is usually better than the best war.

 

Italy eventually became the richest and the most developed part of Europe by the late Middle Ages without enjoying too much peace.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta