Did Justinian I destroy the Roman Empire?

A pretty harsh accusation, right? But I personally think that in some ways, he's one of the most disastrous emperors next to Honorius and Romanus IV Diogenes.

First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade.

For his religious policy, there was nothing good about it. While Justinian's religious laws were largely continuations of what had been happening for the last century and a half, his quest for a monolithic Orthodox empire succeeded in just about pissing off everybody, both East and West. One of Rome's great strengths had been its ability to absorb and tolerate different peoples and religions, thus promoting loyalty. By the end of his reign, Justinian had estranged most of the empire's religious minorities through his harsh religious laws, thus taking away this social glue. This is a reason why Monophysites and Jews were so receptive to the Persians when they briefly conquered large stretches of the empire. Later, it is believed by some that it is this belief that the government in Constantinople had become too tyrannical that caused many Byzantines to put up no resistance to the Muslim armies, and sometimes even welcoming them.

When it came to other policies, I don't think that Justininian was all that competent there as well. Buildings like the Hagia Sophia might look pretty, but the massive amount of money and resources poured into them could have been used for more practical matters. Moreover, during the Nika Riots, he showed an absolute lack of nerve initially, and would have left the city to anarchy if his wife hadn't had more balls than he.

The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.

Anyone agree or disagree?

There have been already some discussions about this before.

I believe that Justinian was unlucky and he did not have greater success because of the plague and that he was one of the greatest roman emperors. The greatest quality of a leader it's to choose good people for the highest position and to keep a working relation with them and in this aspect he was evidently wise and well served.

Under him the roman army successfully conquered large areas like no other christian emperor before or after. He built many fortifications in the Balkans and at the persian border and that marvel that is Hagia Sophia. He codified roman law in the best way and blended it with christianity giving it a shape that it's the base for many modern law systems.

Maybe, if not for the plague, he would have left behind a Roman Empire covering the entire Mare Nostrum bigger and stronger, capable of withstanding any attack.

I agree with you totally on all points. I would also add a couple more:

1) Italy would have fallen back into the Roman orbit anyway - it was still technically part of the Empire, and the Ostrogoths were fast adopting Latin and Roman ways. And as you say, it would have been better equipped to oppose the Lombard invasion, which destroyed Roman material culture for good.

2) He closed the Philosophical schools in Athens, which to me was the penultimate nail in the coffin of Classical culture (the final one being the adoption of Greek as the official language of the Empire a century later - in part driven by territorial loss due to Justinian's over stretching, as the Roman orbit increasingly contracted around Greece and Asia Minor.)

http://www.bede.org.uk/justinian.htm

Emperor Goblinus and Northern Neil I agree with you completely.

Yes it is true that Justinian was an able leader in that he expanded the Empire to reclaim Africa and Italy, and even some small parts of Spain, but as mentioned above and in several books the cost of this growth was enormous for the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Lombards invaded Italy Constantinople simply wasn't able to hold on to most of Italy. The Empire did hold onto Rome, Ravenna and some scattered areas but by and large Italy was never the same again.

I must admit I always found it odd that Odoacer and the Ostrogoths after him kept so much of the Roman administration, institutions and culture alive. I found it always ironic in my books that it was the Byzantines who dealt the final blow to classical Italy, and weakened the East to the point the Empire would lose the middle east and Egypt to the muslims just some 50 years later.

Emperor Goblinus and Northern Neil I agree with you completely.

 

Yes it is true that Justinian was an able leader in that he expanded the Empire to reclaim Africa and Italy, and even some small parts of Spain, but as mentioned above and in several books the cost of this growth was enormous for the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Lombards invaded Italy Constantinople simply wasn't able to hold on to most of Italy. The Empire did hold onto Rome, Ravenna and some scattered areas but by and large Italy was never the same again.

If not for the plague maybe the Empire could have taken the cost of expansion and became larger and stronger.

The parts of Italy that the empire held gave birth to the Papal State, Amalfi, Venice etc. Not always in the advantage of Constantinople but still decisive for the worlds history.

I must admit I always found it odd that Odoacer and the Ostrogoths after him kept so much of the Roman administration, institutions and culture alive. I found it always ironic in my books that it was the Byzantines who dealt the final blow to classical Italy, and weakened the East to the point the Empire would lose the middle east and Egypt to the muslims just some 50 years later.

The roman past was more fresh in Italy then in other parts of the West, but there is no guarantee that Italy would have fared better in the long run.

A "what if" history when Justinian did not smash the goths would have still witness an unavoidable war with the growing power of the East, internal strife that had already begun, religious conflicts between the arian germans and the catholic majority, pressure from longobards and other barbarians and frankish interventions. All this problems were already there and the small effectives of romans used in Italy show a considerable goth weakness.

I don't believe in the idyllic (and panegyric) image of Ostrogoth Italy.

A pretty harsh accusation, right? But I personally think that in some ways, he's one of the most disastrous emperors next to Honorius and Romanus IV Diogenes.

 

First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade... The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.

 

Anyone agree or disagree?

I'm not a big fan of Justinian as a conqueror, but as a whole his foreign policy was not a failure and could hardly been responsible for the shrinkage of the Empire; chronology simply doesn't add up. The Roman Empire remained large and strong for quite a long time. The Vandal state disappeared and the Ostrogoths' defeat proved to be definitive; in any case, no Germanic kingdom ever returned to the Empire by its own choice, and the Romans had vast experience with their foedariti for expecting otherwise, no matter their "romanisation" degree. Rome, Ravenna and at least half of the re-conquered Italy were still under Imperial rule two centuries after Justinian; Africa and Sicily were firmly Roman up to the Arab conquest; and the last Roman stronghold in Italy wasn't conquered (by the Normans) until the XII century. If the Empire was eventually not able to recover its lost territories, the main explanation would be Muhammad; the powerful Caliphate was essentially unbeatable, and the Arab conquests deprived the Empire from most of their economic infrastructure.

Goblinus,

I find that I agree with your view. You've made a good argument.

A pretty harsh accusation, right? But I personally think that in some ways, he's one of the most disastrous emperors next to Honorius and Romanus IV Diogenes.

 

First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade... The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.

 

Anyone agree or disagree?

I'm not a big fan of Justinian as a conqueror, but as a whole his foreign policy was not a failure and could hardly been responsible for the shrinkage of the Empire; chronology simply doesn't add up. The Roman Empire remained large and strong for quite a long time. The Vandal state disappeared and the Ostrogoths' defeat proved to be definitive; in any case, no Germanic kingdom ever returned to the Empire by its own choice, and the Romans had vast experience with their foedariti for expecting otherwise, no matter their "romanisation" degree. Rome, Ravenna and at least half of the re-conquered Italy were still under Imperial rule two centuries after Justinian; Africa and Sicily were firmly Roman up to the Arab conquest; and the last Roman stronghold in Italy wasn't conquered (by the Normans) until the XII century. If the Empire was eventually not able to recover its lost territories, the main explanation would be Muhammad; the powerful Caliphate was essentially unbeatable, and the Arab conquests deprived the Empire from most of their economic infrastructure.

I agree .

James Allan Evans' words are fair - "...it (Iustinianus rule) appears to be a brilliant effort to stem the tide of history, and in the end, it was more a failure than a moderate success."

I believe that Justinian was unlucky and he did not have greater success because of the plague

Yes, this is my opinion too. "Justinian's plague" was one of the worst plagues in roman history. And worse was, that plague hit practically just empire in its borders, but not 'enemies' behind borders (for example Arabs on the south). Plague dramatically weakened economy of empire, what influenced power of army and defence. In some parts of empire died almost half of people.