Talk:Justinian I

Justinian I has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
September 22, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 1, 2004, April 1, 2005, April 7, 2006, April 7, 2007, August 1, 2012, and August 1, 2015.
Current status: Good article

Anecdota of Procopius

Hardly any mention of this at all...should it perhaps not be mentioned a little more, even if it is now considered more of a polemic than even-handed history? Especially since Procopius is the primary source on his reign, it doesn't seem even handed to select the propagandistic (most of Procopius is recognized as being far too complimentary of Justinian, probably out of fear) over the polemic (the Anecdota). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talkcontribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I love primary sources, much prefer them to secondary, that being said... Most primary sources require interpretation. Interpretation of a Primary Source becomes a secondary source, which is what Wikipedia wants, specifically from peer reviewed journals. Anecdota is wonderful, and also wonderfully biased, so a quote or something along those lines would be fine, but written in context, and sections shouldn't be based off of it, but rather a secondary source, now then with this, it's fine to add in a bit about what Anecdota says, or it's view of the subject, but it shouldn't be used as the weight behind a subject. Do you see what I'm getting at? (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Roman Corn?

"In addition long-distance trade flourished, reaching as far north as Cornwall where tin was exchanged for Roman corn." I thought corn was only found in the Americas at this time. (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's maize...corn is, well, whatever grain the author meant. Wheat I guess? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I read a historical mystery that takes place in Rome and the author kept talking about the "corn ships from Egypt." I thought this odd and researched it. Turns out that in early Britain (but not Roman-era Britain) any grain was often called "corn." So I doubt the Romans called the grain ships from Egypt "corn ships." I learned from reading Justinian's Flea (a book reference in the article) that it made more sense economically (shipping costs and spoilage) to ship grain by ship across the Mediterranean then 50 miles over the mountains of Italy by ox-cart. This is also why the bubonic plague spread so rapidly across Justinian's empire, as the rats crept aboard the grain ships (with fleas attached) and fed on the grain, but lived long enough to survive until they reached the next port. When they died at the next port, the fleas left them and hopped onto another host, thereby spreading the bubonic plague. If the rats spread by ox-cart, they would not have lived long enough to make it to the next city as ox-cart travel was so slow. The bubonic plague was an important cause of the collapse of the new Roman Empire under Justinian. I am retired now, but I use to write and lecture, while working as an entomologist at a major university, on insect-vectored diseases and how they affected history. This is why I read Justinian's Flea. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Corn = wheat in Ancient Europe (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace again

Don't you think that the part about the birthplace of Iustinian should be changed or at leat corrected to reflect the lack of certainty where exactly it was? The site if Justinianan Prima is identified as Caricin Grad near Lebane, Serbia in all Wikipedias that have an article about it (Serbian, German, English, Albanian). As far as I know, and I do know a bit about it although it is not my speciality, Caricin Grad is considered to be the most likely candidate for Justiniana Prima and Justinians birthplace by the majority of scholars that deal with this period. There is also a sizable litterature on the topic, of which I cannot at the moment mention anything since I don't have my own bibliography with me nor am I close to a library. I've also excavated on the site and, the way I see it, the earchaeological evidence (since the literary one is less than clear) points to Caricin Grad as the site. I didn't want to make any changes myself since there are other people who have put a lot of effort and good work into this arcticle and the final decision should be theirs but I believe that at least a note on the ambiguity of evidence should be added. Dagobert 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take on this and ask a question for better understanding this "point". Justinian appears, on it's page, as from Tauresium but on the citations there is doubt regarding Him being from Tauresium or from Justiniana Prima (which states on it's page as being erected by Justinian). My question is regarding if there is a plausible doubt regarding the place of birth of Justinian (Tauresium or Justiniana Prima) or about it's location (if Tauresium is near Skopje or where it's supposed to be Justiniana Prima). In any case my questions come, probably, from a lack of my part in understanding the way in how this information is presented in Justinian's Wiki EN page. I'm a Wiki PT user trying to update it's information while using the superb work done in this page. --Paulo Especial (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Literary References

Don't know if you want to include a literary reference section, but for what it's worth, Justinian appears in Dante's Divine Comedy. He is on Mercury, in the second realm of heaven.

Sure, go ahead and add the section. Perhaps A Struggle for Rome and other historical novels could also be included. Iblardi 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Citation of Procopius about 100 million casualties has to be deleted. In fact the population of his empire was less than half of this figure.--deguef (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Justinian's origin

You are removing sourced material from the article based on your own WP:POV, like it or not, the references you removed respect WP:RS, and removing reliably sourced material is considered vandalism in wikipedia. Please seek consensus for each of your removals first or they will be reverted and try to discuss changes rather than engaging in an edit war.- Best regards Bartebly62 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bartebly62. The point is that, as Vasiliev indicates, there is no consensus on Justinian's descent, simply because the sources do not tell us anything about it inform us about it in a way that would enable us to link him to a specific (ancient or modern) ethnic group. You can easily verify this by looking it up in relevant literature, such as Vasiliev's classic work. Compare also this article in the Concise Encyclopedia Britannica, in which Justinian is called an Illyrian. The only thing we know is that his family came from a region where Latin (rather than Greek) was spoken; everything beyond that is speculation. Having our article say that Justinian was of ancient Macedonian stock is therefore simply misleading. Now, the sources you provided are non-specialist, i.e. they don't specifically deal with Justinian or even Byzantine history.
By the way, accusing me of vandalism / edit warring when I do provide a specialized source is not helpful at all. Iblardi 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I am copying the above discussion from our user talk pages to this page. Iblardi 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Saint" Justinian??

Not that I have a problem with it, but when was Justinian cannonised? I know within the Orthodox church, there is not an official process, but I had never heard anyone referring to him as a saint. I doubt if anyone ever did. Is this a modern zeal? --Khodadad 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The halo surrounding his head indicates sainthood in the Orthodox Church. Many books do not list him among the saints, but he was canonized around the year 700. You'll see a reference to him as such near the bottom.Will 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The nimbus or halo was a Late Antique convention to indicate sanctity, it probably derived from sun-worship, it was later adopted by the Christian Church. It was used in depictions of pagan Roman emperors (including Licinius) and gods, a surviving frontal image of Jupiter has a nimbus. The image of Justinian in San Vitale with the nimbus was executed during Justinians lifetime. Urselius 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That page indicates that Justinian was healed by a saint but it didn't indicate that Justinian was thought to be a saint. I don't think that paintings showing him with a halo really suggest more than the opinion of the painter or the painter's sponsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Orthodox Wiki certainly lists him as St. Justinian: That's not a sufficient source by itself if this is really contested. Orthodox iconographic tradition does not tolerate individual painters making up who is a saint, btw. That nimbus means a lot more than just one painter's opinion. Tb (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as is said above, it is an iconographical convention to express Byzantine ideas on the sanctity of Roman emperorship, not as much of the person. Every emperor was depicted with a nimbus around his head during his lifetime, including historically impopular ones such as Romanus IV Diogenes or Alexios IV Angelos. I wouldn't draw conclusions about the saintly status of an individual emperor based on the use of the nimbus alone. Iblardi (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree in general, though it's going to depend on the particular person. In this case, there isn't any doubt. Tb (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no doubt at all. Go here: and search Justinian. You will find a listing, complete with feast day on Oct. 14th. This is the official site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and I'm pretty sure they're not in the habit of posting listings about saints that aren't actually venerated. Really not surprising that he's a saint, considering how rigorously he upheld Orthodox doctrine. Peace! Themill, who can't be bothered to log in right now.

Then what about Theodora? The site mentions Justinian and Theodora as a couple, yet according to tradition she had monophysitic sympathies, which makes her orthodoxy much less obvious. Iblardi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, what about a lot of things though? Cyril is venerated as a saint in the Coptic Church (Monophysite) despite the fact that he was strongly Dyophysitic. Nestorius was banished as a heretic, even though almost all of his arguments were accepted, with the exception of Christokos, instead of Theotokos. It just is what it is. She's also Canonized by the Orthodox Chruch, by the way. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC))


It seems to me that Justinian's name contradicts the outlines given in the article on Roman naming conventions (as do, in fact, many names of Roman Emperors). Following those outlines he would have been called something like Flavius Iustinus Sabbatianus (assuming, that "Sabbatius" was his original nomen gentile). Why did he take another way and took his adopted father's name in the -ianus-form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that naming conventions had become blurred by Justinian's time. It would also be irrelevant to speak of 'Sabbatius' as a nomen gentile in Justinian's case, since his ancestors were not of ancient Roman stock but rather Romanized Illyrians. Iblardi (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek name

Ireland101, this is ridiculous, we are not claiming that Justinian himself was Greek, simply that his name in Greek is important to history. The majority of his empire was Greek, and he is a saint in the Orthodox Church. Greek is entirely relevant here. I apologize that this has absolutely nothing to do with Macedonia; no need to be offended this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you mean. A majority of his empire was Greek? Last time I checked Greece is quite insignificant in the whole spectrum of Byzantium. I know he is a saint in the Orthodox church, did you know that there are 15 orthodox churches, only 1 being Greek. I do not know what you are getting at, the church was made by Constantine a Roman. Greeks make up a minority of Orthodox Christians just as Romanians and Serbians. The majority are Russian. Although it is unrelated to the dispute, it does have to do with Macedonia as Justinian was born in Macedonia, just as Nero was born in Rome. Ireland101 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Why did I even bother? Sigh. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Of course it makes sense to include Justinian's name in Greek. Almost all of our direct sources on him and his reign are in Greek; the culture and the unofficial language of his empire were Greek; all important literature during his reign was written in Greek; his later laws were issued in Greek. The only thing not Greek about Justinian is the man himself, a fact of which we are informed in the article. So yes, keep the Greek name. Iblardi (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I could've thought Ireland would pop up here as well. Don't worry about the naming issue - he is keen on removing names in certain languages and adding such in irrelevant once to prove some odd point of his. Just a little comment - how could Greek be irrelevant for an empire whose official language is, let me see, yeah - Greek. --Laveol T 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the man himself was not Greek. If you demand that the Greek spelling of his name be placed because his laws were issued in Greek, then the Albanian spelling of his name has an equal right - if not more - to be displayed since he was Illyrian. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that Justinian spoke Latin rather than Greek would be a reason to introduce the Albanian language. The point is that Justinian was primarily known by his Greek name to the majority of his subjects, including Procopius, who is the main literary source for his reign. Iblardi (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, then, shouldn't Trajan, Hadrian, and Maximinus Thrax (whose only contemporary source is Herodian) all have the Greek versions of their names included? The point is, I think, that since he was Illyrian by ethnicity, then his Albanian name is appropriate (After all, even the L.O.C concludes that there is a relationship between Illyrians and Albanians). RAMerkel ([[User talk:: RAMerkel|talk]]) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a relationship between Latin and Italian. That doesn't mean that Italian names should be included in every article dealing with classical figures. Iblardi (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now going on a tangent, as well as picking and choosing specifics that fit your argument. So I will keep the discussion on Justinian. The issue here is that, by your own admission, because the majority of his empire may have called Justinian by the Greek version of his name and Procopius was a Greek historian writing about Justinian, the Greek version of his name is relevant. At the same time his ethnicity is completely irrelevant. This is by all accounts disingenuous. By your rationale a 3rd generation African-American should be referred to as American without any credence of his ethnicity. RAMerkel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is very little evidence to connect the modern Albanian language with any of the Illyrian languages. To suggest that Justinian was "Albanian" is ludicrous. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact there is substantial linguist evidence to connect the Albanian language with Illyrian. The notion is supported by storied linguists from Hans Krahe, Gottfried Leibniz, Norbert Jokl, WM Leake, and Paul Kretschmer, among others. More over, the article itself states that Justinian was a Latin-speaking Illyrian. To suggest otherwise, as you are, is ludicrous. Credence to his ethnicity is just as appropriate as the credence to the primary sources of information that we have about Justinian. To erase his ethnicity, as you are trying to do, is purely dishonest revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMerkel (talkcontribs) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "erase his ethnicity"; the article is clear that he was from Illyria. The point is that this is an English encyclopedia, and the government he headed conducted its business in Latin and (ancient) Greek, and not in modern Albanian. Tb (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The link between Albanian and Illyrian is the subject of current debate. The question is by no means settled, unless you are an Albanian nationalist. The "substantial linguist evidence" you speak is in fact not substantial at all and the linguists you mention are outdated. Our understanding of the ancient Balkans has changed considerably since then, and there are good reasons to believe Albanian is derived from an ancient language other than Illyrian. Please consult the articles on the Albanian language, Illyrian languages and Origin of Albanians before making drawing such conclusions. To suggest that Albanians and Illyrians are one and the same people is very imprudent. Moreover, Justinian was descended from Illyrians that had been thoroughly Romanized and spoke Latin as his native language, not "Albanian". That's why you won't find a single reliable source that calls Justinian "Albanian". Until you find a reliable, modern source that claims Justinian was "Albanian", there is no question of inserting his name in Albanian. Good luck. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - even if it were 100% true and undisputed that Illyrian and Albanian are related and Albanians are descended from Illyrians, it is entirely irrelevant to someone who lived in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms on the linguists I mentioned, modern linguistics is built on their work. Therefore by definition, they can't be outdated. Additionally, the articles you mention (and L.O.C itself) concede a relationship between Illyrian and Albanian. Also, to correct a misstatement of yours, Justinian was Illyrian, not merely "descended from Illyrians". The article on Justinian unequivocally states this. The fact that you are stating otherwise is dishonest revisionism.

By your very argument, Tsourkpk, there is no question of inserting his name in Greek, unless you can establish that Justinian was Greek - which I don't believe you are advocating. The point is if you are going to argue that inserting Justinian's name in Greek is relevant based on our primary source of information on him being in Greek - certainly you are not advocating that the majority of his empire was Greek- then inserting his name in the language that is most similar to the Illyrian language is equally as appropriate (and even more so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMerkel (talkcontribs) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason to list the Greek is not because he was Greek, it's because his empire used Greek as its primary language, and all the primary sources are written in Greek. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. Tb (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

English version of name

What's with the spelling with an initial I instead of J? It's not spelled that way in English, though of course Latin had no J. I'd suggest deleting it as misleading. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


The change from "Eastern Roman Emperor" to "Byzantine Emperor" by the alphabetically challenged (yes, that is his/her WP name :-) in the very first sentence seems gratuitous.

The primary readers of this WP article are, I suspect, not professional historians. Justinian accomplished several notable projects and he represents an important evolutionary figure in his empire's history.

  • But to most readers, Justinian is singularly significant for reorganizing Roman law, reconquering the (Mediterranean portions of the) western lands of the Roman Empire, and thereby exporting that law westward.
  • He did so from the RE's traditional eastern capital.

So one might sensibly first regard him as an emperor of the RE, or perhaps more precisely of the ERE.

But how does identifying him as "Byzantine" help such readers? To me, this change illuminates very little, and it obscures the most important connection of the time: Justinian thought of himself and his empire as Roman, as did virtually everyone else in both his empire and the reconquered lands. (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.-- (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Perfect! --deguef (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed this again recently, from ERE to BE (July 2020). I changed it back. My change is justified since both Justinian's predecessor Justin I and his successor Justin II are identified as ERE, not BE. It would, indeed, be better to have a consistent policy regarding this. If we name all post-476 Emperors as Byzantine, that is debatable but would be better than the alternating titles we have now. A better cut-off might be the rule of Emperor Heraclius, after whom the Empire was largely restricted to its medieval territories in Anatolia and the Balkans, as opposed to a Mediterranean-wide empire. Diegojosesalva (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Which image looks better for the infobox?

Original mosaic image.
Color balanced version of the same mosaic.

Which image looks better in the infobox, original or color balance?

Color balance. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, I am the one who is having problems with the replacement, but I may well change my mind if convincing arguments are given. The exact reason for changing the status quo has never been fully clear to me; I'm not sure what "color balance" is supposed to mean. I myself think the original image should be in the infobox for two reasons:
  • The old picture more closely resembles most photographs of the same mosaic I have seen printed in books, which, in my opinion, makes for greater recognizability of the article's subject. At least, this is how it worked for me, and this is perhaps why I am being a little conservative over this.
  • To me, the colors of the old picture do seem richer and seem more natural: the face is pink, the background gold (in line with the "Byzantine" splendour which is often referred to), the dress purple. Compared with this, the palet of the new picture, although the photograph itself is sharp, seems to be impoverished, mainly consisting of various shades of two complementary colors: blue and orange (with a general tendency to dissolve into grey - maybe it was underexposed?), making the colors of the new picture look less authentic, both in terms of "natural" colors and of quality of rendering.
Iblardi (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The color-balanced photo looks more like the mosaic looks in real life. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That depends totally on how much light is on it at the time. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
RfC comment. I am far from an expert on such matters, but of the two I prefer the color-balanced one. The other looks, at least to an ill-informed outsider like myself, almost distractingly garish. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That would not have been the Byzantine view! Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Colour balanced. feydey (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, albeit it looks like he has a mustache. This one looks better. clayjar (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The original is much better. The background is gold leaf applied to glass, not decorator's beige. The cloak is indeed purple, not navy blue, and the centre of the fibula is scarlet not orange. The original may be slightly souped-up, but gives a much better reflection of the effect intended by the artist. The mosaic is very high on a wall, and needed brioght colours to be seen clearly, and to give the effect of magnificence undoubtedly intended. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Having been open for a month, the majority of the people who contributed support the color balanced version. Restored it. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a RfC supposed to be simply a majority decision based on personal preferences? I think that good arguments were given by user:Johnbod showing why the colour-balanced version is inaccurate. Iblardi (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
An image somewhere between the two would be ideal. Meanwhile the original should not be deleted from Commons, as often tends to happen. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Provided that it can be used on Wikipedia, what would you think of the alternative proposed by user:clayjar? Here the contrast seems a little on the low side too, with some of the (supposedly) black tesserae being shown in grey, but the overall coloration seems more truthful than that of the 'balanced' picture. Iblardi (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten of this as most of the contributing people supported the current picture, but if the picture suggested can be used, I would have no problems with it. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It apparently comes from here, which means that using it would be incompatible with WP's copyright policies. Thanks for the notice though. Iblardi (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent decline?

The last sentence of the "legacy" section in the article says Justinian's conquests were probably responsible for the subsequent decline. What subsequent decline? The later emperor Maurice solved the two major issues that Justinian faced: Persia and the Balkans. By the end of Maurice's reign, tribute to Persia was no more, and soldiers could be transferred to the Balkans, where the Avars were thrust back across the Danube, only to be attacked by the Romans in their own homeland. I don't think aggressive trans-danubian campaigning could be part of a "subsequent decline". The territories in north Africa that were reconquered during Justinian's time were no doubt of value. The empire by 602 was undoubtedly poised to resume campaigns in Italy - regardless of the destruction of the peninsula during Justinian's time. The "subsequent decline" could only mean the Muslim invasions, which could hardly be attributed to Justinian's policies a century earlier.

any thoughts?

--Tataryn77 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fashionable in recent decades to attribute the Empire's woes in the latter 6th and 7th centuries to Justinian's extravagant policies which, so the argument goes, exhausted the state. And there are several points were Justinian's reign was less than beneficial for Byzantium: Italy was devastated and depopulated, falling easily prey to the Lombards, the immense treasury surplus left by Anastasius was spent, the central field armies dispersed in isolated garrisons around the Mediterranean, the diversion of men and founds west encouraged the Persians to begin what would become almost a century-long series of wars, in which Antioch and many other cities in the East were sacked and huge sums paid for tribute, the depopulation caused by the plague (for which Justinian was certainly not to blame), the rising tension between Chalcedonians and Monophysites, etc. A more conservative ruler would supposedly have focused on defending the borders in the East and the Balkans, leaving the state in a far better shape. In my opinion, these arguments are based too much on hindsight and do not fully take into account the extraordinarily bad luck that the Empire had in the 7th century: the first successful coup in Byzantine history replaces a capable emperor with a paranoid incompetent tyrant, and even after the Empire recovered under Heraclius, the Muslim conquests, a totally unforeseeable event, begin. Nevertheless, it is true that by the end of Justinian's reign, the Empire was pretty much exhausted and overstretched, and it showed in the difficulties of his immediate successors. Constantine 06:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but what I'm proposing is the question of whether the empire was in a better situation in 565 or 600? Despite the plague, during Justinians era was it not the Persians and Avars who recieved all those "thousands of pounds" of gold? Despite Maurices' stinginess, the remission of tribute to the Persians and the Avars must have counted when it came down to internal stability.
--Tataryn77 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that even asking whether the Empire was "in a better situation" presupposes that we (and modern historians) agree on the criteria. Worse, for our article to suggest that Justinian was unwise (as language such as "fiscal exhaustion" suggests) presupposes that he was applying his judgment according to modern criteria: a "presentist" bias on our part. If the appropriate goal for his time -- as held by the typical Roman citizen (or even emperor) -- was, say, prosperity, or fiscal prudence, or a well-ordered state, we might understand; and we could question his judgment based on subsequent bad outcomes. But if that goal was sovereignty over the 'ancestral' lands of the RE, or imperial grandeur (or even architectural innovation), then he was very successful -- whether or not we in modern times think those should have been the goals of a responsible emperor.
To clarify: I do not know what the recognized goals of his time were, against which we might measure his judgment. Perhaps some editor will enlighten us. But there are much worse things than fiscal exhaustion, such as accomplishing nothing with all that wealth. (Just ask the heirs of Thomas Jefferson.) Jmacwiki (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Justinian has not been surnamed "the Great" by accident. His tremendous energy and the vast array of his accomplishments (and failures, such as in weeding corruption out of the administration, halting the slow decline of the cities, or his policies re Persia) in almost every field make him perhaps the foremost and most critical ruler of Late Antiquity after Constantine I. Modern historians, with hindsight, often condemn his plan for a renovatio imperii and his campaigns of reconquest. In 565 however, it would seem to contemporaries that he had been successful to a great extent in restoring the Empire, at least around the Mediterranean basin. Judging by contemporary standards, and by the aims he had set himself (as far as we can discern them from his proclamations and the comments of contemporary historians), Justinian was rather successful. Nevertheless, we do possess hindsight, and the material exhaustion of the state was a fact directly attributable to his policies, and a fact which undermined his otherwise enormous achievements. The legacy he left his successors with was largely one of imperial overstretch: behind the glittering facade, the edifice was showing rifts.
As an aside, in this respect his reign is very similar to that of Manuel I Komnenos, who was also a magnificent ruler, but who also squandered the Empire's wealth and resources (arguably less prudently than Justinian). In both cases, the state suffered setbacks immediately after the ruler died. It might have recovered eventually, but catastrophic (and unforeseeable) events, the Muslim conquests and the Fourth Crusade, deprived it of that chance. In both cases however, the catalyst for the weakening of the Empire came from within: the murder of Maurice and the 20-odd years of war that followed, and the coups and counter-coups of the Angeloi. Constantine 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The purpose my original point was not to shed bad light on Justinian, I feel quite the contrary actually. If anything Justinian personified the era and actually "did something" for once. My argument was however against the idea of a "subsequent decline" after his reign - those exact words being used in the article. I firmly stand by the fact that this "decline" did not happen "subsequently", and that Maurice's reign cannot and should not be associated with a "decline". In my points defense I only contrasted Maurice's reign to Justinian's, not meaning to denigrate the latter. My point was that in c.600 during Maurice's reign the Roman Empire was in a far better position in multiple theatres than it had in centuries. When concerning the Persians - a constant Roman threat - the initiative was with the Romans. The peace treaty established by Maurice was his new brother-in-law Khosrau II solidified the eastern frontier. Tribute to the Persians was over. Then on top of such success in the east, Maurice turned the tide against the Avars, crossing the Danube, burning "barbarian" settlements, etc, etc. Tribute to the Avars was over. I believe these two points are sufficient enough to say that Maurice's reign cannot be associated with a decline. Justinian was great, sure, and I believe he established a sort of plateau of dominance which was maintained until Maurice's overthrow. I think I better explained my arguement this time around. --Tataryn77 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in this respect you are certainly correct. Maurice's reign was a very successful period of consolidation, and even of advances against the Persians. As I said in my first post, but for Phocas' usurpation, he would likely have redressed most of the results of the problems left over by Justinian. Constantine 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
For sure, maybe a slight re-wording of the exact words "subsequent decline" would make sense? I always find that abbreviated history talks about the Muslim invasions after talking about Justinian, shedding negative light on Justinian, as well as over-looking the sort of pinnacle of the Late (Latin) Roman Empire during Maurice's time - taking into account the very friendly relations with Persia, and the vanquishing of the Avars to a degree, concluding the tribulations of the 500's.
I have tweaked that sentence, to soften the (unjustified) implication. Feel free to do more. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A more leisurely question: what do you propose Maurice's next move would have been? Assuming he was a little less stingy and gave the army a little raise? I always thought he'd clean up south of the Danube for a year or two, then move into Italy? The ability to reduce the army on the eastern front to 25% of its earlier levels, would allow a concerted effort to attack the Lombards. Perhaps he would have died anyways (he was old already) before being able to do much? All this is just silly talk of course, but I always find by asking these questions you often understand the situation in those times a little better.--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Always a fascinating avenue of thought. My only contribution, based on very little knowledge of 7th-C. eastern & southern Europe: Would holding Italy (for instance) have "paid for itself"? That is, would the economic production of Italy have been greater than the cost of defending it, and/or would holding it offer a corresponding strategic advantage -- perhaps lowering naval costs greatly, despite some modest extra costs for the army? Jmacwiki (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Italy would not be the most profitable region, especially after the Gothic Wars and the ensuing plague during Justinian's reign. Nevertheless, the ideological importance of Italy cannot be underestimated. Also, with the eastern and northern frontiers of the empire quite secure, there wouldn't have been many other regions for Maurice's armies to campaign in without first securing Italy. Any further consolidation of Africa would require a firm naval presence and control of Italy in most cases, and it seems like Maurice was beginning to accomplish this goal by establishing the Exarchate of Ravenna, which seems to have suceeded in allowing Italian cities to prosper under their own self-interests. Maurice had few other options for expansion north or east, and it seems like west was his only choice. Also, the Lombards would be considered the greatest threat to the empire during Maurice's last years, as the Avars were no longer capable of crossing the lower Danube to plunder the Balkans. In my eyes, the campaign to restore Italy in its entirety would have been a much easier task than turning back the Avar invasions - the Lombards were fractured off the get-go - unable to assemble any army comparable to Maurice's. I'd be surprised if the Lombard duchies in southern Italy could even gather an army of 10,000. Meanwhile Maurice could probably muster at least 35,000 troops for the campaign - considering the entire field army of the empire is said to number around 150,000 at this time - and the majority of the army that was previously on the eastern front was now being brought to the Danube.--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, far be it from me to question holding Italy for purely ideological reasons. I'm the one who [a few exchanges back] argued for evaluating Justinian on just such grounds, instead of conventional, modern ones. But we do seem to be straying from the Talk page guidelines here. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the latter parts of the discussion were all conjecture and "silly talk" as I said earlier, I was just wondering what other people thought about the subject. After all, wikipedia is a good place to find knowledgeable individuals pertaining to whatever subject. I don't think I was straying too far, though, as the article states Maurice intended to place his second son Tiberius as an emperor in Rome. So it would seems that a campaign to restore Rome's security was perhaps in the works--Tataryn77 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the bubonic plague. While the author of Justinian's Flea takes forever to get around to it, the plague, which hit Justinian's empire near the end of his reign, wiped out many of the bureaucrats who were responsible for keeping the Empire running. It also hit his armies hard too, not even considering the trade unions, merchants, farmers, etc. One importance consequence was that the Roman and Persian empires lost so many soldiers to the plague that they hired some of the people they were fighting to serve as mercenaries. For example, the Persians hired Arab warriors from the desert, which meant that these warriors learned military tactics which they taught to their sons and grandsons who used that knowledge when Islam erupted from the desert and into the weakened Persian and Roman empires. See my post under "Corn" above. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and nixed the decline part, it's a long argument on the responsibility of Justinian for the set backs under Phocas, and for me the argument is significantly lessened by the successes of Tiberius II, and particularly of Maurice. The fact that Maurice did what he did, and expanded the Empire's land holdings to their greatest height since the fall of the west, signifies to me, that the argument for Justinian's responsibility in the empire's decline is a tenuous one, and one that need not be placed on the Wiki page. I think it's also important to bear in mind what exactly decline means, the ERE has a reputation similar to that of the Seleukid empire of being an empire perpetually in decline, but in regard to the Seleukid empire Jeremy McInerney of the University of Pennsylvania likes to point out that they left the untenable regions, and focused on the important areas, i.e. the trade routes, and the fertile land. The same is true of the ERE. (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Why Does Wikipedia Gloss Over The Illyrians?

It can be proved easily that Jutinian was an illyrian by looking at the way he behaved and the way the Illyrian Emperors of Rome behaved. In the time of Diocletian all emperors were Illyrian and would only choose one of their own because they simply wanted to keep the reigns of empire in Illyrian hands. The illyrian emperor Anastasius would not have choose a non-Illyrian as his successor. This would be well understood by any albanian of today.

Justinian and fifteen other Roman emperors were Illyrian, including Diocletian and Constantine the Great, yet mention of this and explicit statements which can clarify that they were all born in ILLYRIA (Illyricum) are strictly prohibited here. Dardania: does this ring a bell? The Dardanii were an Illyrian tribe who inhabited much of present-day Kosovo. We mustn’t offend the Serbians and the Greeks, I suppose. Need I remind anyone that there were no Slavs in the Balkans at the time? And the Greeks desire to claim all Byzantine rulers as theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

well, at least according to Norwich he was Thracian, not "Illyrian". I apologize to the Albanian nationalists for this (not that they should care, since the equation Illyrians = Albanians is not accepted by anyone outside Albania) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I had to do a double-take - how he BEHAVED determined that he was an Illyrian, ethnically? Wow. (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Anastasius didn’t choose Justinian as his successor, Justin I placed the dynasty into power through a coup as Anastasius had lacked the influence needed to secure the throne for his preferred successor Hypatius. Justin and Justinian were of Thracian origins. At least if Ian Hughes and Peter Heather are to be trusted. Dorromikhal (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


I need help! Please help me with information on justinian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plague of Justinian - Recovering

Spring, year 540 When the devoted general Belisarius approached Katlanovo, he didn’t have any high expectations. "Plague does not choose either by gender or by merit” - he perplexed himself. When he left his emperor Justinian Prima three months ago, he was half passed on the other side. ...The night they called upon him at the royal Palace he first saw the sovereign as a human being. Dark in the eyes and lips, just as those ill people in the poorest neighbourhoods of Constantinople, his emperor gave him a sign to come closer. “Take me home” – his pallid lips whispered – “If I can get well, the only place it can happen is in Macedonia”…

The road that devoted Belisarius took twice was not a short one at all. But it was nothing compared to how long the path from the bridge over Pcinja to that two-storey edifice over the spa seemed to him. With his helmet off, prepared to take the heaviest of all consignments, the royal crown that he was supposed to return to Constantinople, Belisarius stood in front of the double winged gate. When the heavy shafts moved, the morning sunshine got through on the other side and callously walloped his face. As the gates were widening, thus was his faith in Justinian Prima’s words: “Katlanovo is the fire-pot where the Sun is born, if anything can cure me then it is there, between the Sun and the water.” There, through the rock, the earth and the trees that melted under the morning glimmer, through the water evaporation in which the rock was boiling and the rock in which the water was boiling, he perceived the whole splendour and immaculate masculinity of his master. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus or Justinian Prima, stood in front of him with his arms wide open and a smile saying “Haven’t I told you?!.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dime atanasovski (talkcontribs) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture - why delete this?

Aldux - explain why you are removing the entire Popular Culture section. It was been well linked to sourced Wiki pages, and is acceptable as described here. There are hundreds of good articles that do this. Dinkytown talk 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you listening or not at all? Because frankly, your answers make me doubt. First of all: WP:V is not an opinion. If something is inserted, it has to be sourced, and sourced reliably (so no IMDB); also, you've got to prove it's notable enough to stand in that specific article (just because in a little known film a historical character is mentioned it doesn't give him automatically a place in the article dedicated to the historical figure in question). And when I said Verifiability is not an opinion, you can't argue for keeping unsourced material saying it's sourced somewhere else. As stated by policy, unsourced content "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced" and this is what I will do. Also, to conclude, you seem to have a weak understanding of the differences that run between policies, guidelines and essays, or else it would be very hard for me to understand why you used an essay (WP:IPC) against policy, as while the latter is binding, essays are personal and often minority viewpoints that have no more holding than the opinion of any single wikipedian (and anyway, don't say what you do, but as noted that doesn't count really anyway).Aldux (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
First, lower your tone. If you have a problem with the sources, then we can discuss. Your hostility is not productive. There are thousands of articles that have popular culture section. Case in point here, or would you remove that entire article because all of those films are not sourced on that page? Dinkytown talk 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Dinkytown, if I insulted you in any way, than you have all my excuses (really), but I honestly don't see anything uncivil in the way I've adressed you: I have put in doubt the solidity of your knowledge of key aspects of wikipedia'a policy, and I still do, as I must admit, your answers puzzle me. The problem is that there are simply no sources: how I can I brag with sources if there aren't any. Please, read what I've told you previously: I've been an editor and an admin a long time, and I know policy damn well. Saying "There are thousands of articles that have popular culture section" is close to saying "There are thousands of unsourced articles", policy is policy, but we can't apply it always for practical reasons; that said the example isn't perfectly the same: I never said it was impossible to have a popular culture section, I'just asked it to be reliably sourced and notable to the context; is that so incredibly strange to ask? And I can't help noticing you've avoided adressed the issues concerning policy.... I must say the example you've made is rather weak: find me an unsourced featured list, and then in will be different, but as the tag in the article you indicated tells, this is very very far from being an example on how we should make articles here. Instead, this is a GA, so don't be surprised if standards are more strict. I will be happy to answer further on the point, if this will bring you to have a better comprehension of policy and guidelines.Aldux (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aldux - First, thank you for your consideration and excuses. I did believe that you were uncivil, but I would rather put that past us. I know you've been around for a long time, about a year longer than I, but damn - 23,000 edits? Don't you work? :)
Actually, I agree with everything you said - good reliable source are paramount and supreme. However, when I have been in your situation and I saw a questionable source, I drop a [citation needed], or some other tag and waited awhile for a response, unless it was BLP - then kill it immediately. If I were in contact with the person doing the editing, I would have told them about the issue, then worked with them on it until there was a resolution, usually with a happy ending. That didn't happen here. I've filed complaints against people under similar circumstances that had very different results. However, I don't want to dwell on this. If anything, you deserve respect because of your voluminous work here.
Let's start over; you're Italian I take it. Two of the three films in question were Italian. Do you know any reliable Italian internet source that might site these films? I was not the one who started that paragraph, but I thought it is still worth saving and could be made better. It's late here - good night... Dinkytown talk 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, when I started I did have quite a lot of free time as a student, but in the last years since I started working not so much, which is why my editing rythm declined sharply... That said, 23,000 is nothing special: lots of editors have done better, and anyways quantity doesn't mean much, it's quality that ultimately counts.
I'm happy we are now reaching a more serene atmosphere; adressing your points, I see your surprised at the end of the report, but you've got to understand that the circumstances have always a considerable weight; in particular, this article being a GA means that the weight to bring sourced content, always policy, is even stronger. After all, it would be great if this article could eventually become an FA, and FAs, especially history FAs, rarely tolerate popular culture sections. I must admit I'm also not as tolerant as you: I expect people to source new material, and if their convinced it's legitimate, I don't understand why they can't source it, as cite tags have too often an unhealthy tendency to stay around for years.
Now regarding the films, I hadn't noticed before, but even the article films themselves are unsourced (there must have been some mutual misunderstanding here regarding this). Answering to your question there's in Italian; it's database contains under the various films quite a number of reviews, and since the reviews are from well known books they should pass RS, also because those articles need sourcing to avoid the danger of deletion due to the suspicion of lack of notability. There's also, regarding this and as menioned previously, a notability issue to solve to put them in this article; there have to be reliable secondary sources that discuss the figure of Justinian in the film to put it here, to know he is in the film somewhere isn't really enough (to make an example, it is possible that while a mention of the film could be OK in the Theodora bio, it may not in the Justinian bio).Aldux (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aldux, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. To tell you the truth, I've never heard of FA and GA before this. I guess we all learn something here now and then... I know what you mean about the history pages rarely tolerating popular culture sections. Normally I would agree with you, since its so close to 'trivia' which should be burned, but I thought a Justinian relate film would have been relevant and informative. As you probably saw from my home page, I'm fanatical about Byzantine history, and I always wondered if there where any films about the subject at any time, foreign or otherwise.
I stand corrected - a movie about Theodora should not be on a Justinian page. I didn't think about that. Since I have never seen the flick, he may not even be in there...
Regarding the sources of the film list, many of the sources have been using Internet Movie Database as their source. IMDb is a commercial website, so the question comes up as to whether is is a reliable source of not. If another site could be had that was more academic, then could would solve the problem. Dinkytown talk 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dinkytown :-) What i said regarding Theodora was just an example to show that it wasn't automatic, but this doesn't mean it isn't possible: at the end it all burns down to the sources, and if there's a solid source which speaks of Justinian (not just a fleeing mention) then it's just fine. And while it would be hard to get a popular culture sec. to get a pass in a GA and a FA, especially in a history article, it wouldn't be impossible as I said, only one would have to be ready to make it exhaustive and become a description of all notable cultural depictions (poetry, drama, music, visual arts) and make sure it's not a list but a cultural history. Now regarding IMDB, the problem it has is that it's just like us, user-generated, so it's not considered reliable, even if it's often used for the most basic info, i.e. cast, length, rating. For IMDB as a reliable source see Wikipedia:RS/IMDB: "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." That said, the various film articles as a rule have a external link to the related IMDB page, but that's in good part because EL have lesser rules and require less reliability than refs. As for Byzantine history, you've got all my understanding! :-))))) I too have always had since I was a teenager a great fascination for Byzantine art and history, and read a lot history books and visited quite a few of Byzantine-related places :-) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL - yes, I knew every Byzantine Emperor when I was in seventh grade. Which only showed that I had no social life when I was in middle school... I definitely was not one of the 'cool kids"... I have a Deesis Mosaic hanging on my wall that I did back then. I've even made a pilgrimage to Istanbul, Haiga Sophia, Walls of Theodosius, etc. Even had the privilege in getting detained by the Turkish Police (i.e. don't take pictures of police stations in the background, regardless of what Byzantine ruins are in front of it...). Nearly did a rendition of Midnight Express...
Had I seen Wikipedia:RS/IMDB, I would have ended my complaint - very sorry... Before all this, I didn't pay too much attention to the quality of the IMDB source, since I'm a history major, I should have known better...
I would like to scout around and look for another Good Article page that deals with something like a Cultural Section, but this might be a long term project... Cya... Dinkytown talk 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Source "Mansi, Concilia" used in the article

Can anyone tell me what this source is? I am unable to find it (except in source lists for things like the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). What *is* it, exactly, so that I can obtain a copy? NJMauthor (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Gian Domenico Mansi's enormous collection of documents from church councils. It's probably online somewhere, it's like 300 years old. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. was this a Roman Catholic document? (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Which, the 6th century document, or Mansi's collection? Mansi was Catholic, but there wasn't really a "Roman" Catholic church in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the affiliation of the 300 year old collection itself, not the collected documents. NJMauthor (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Burial date

In the fact sheet under the picture at the beginning of the article is said that he was buried in 372 bc, which is before the date of his death (565). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting the error. The incorrect date has been removed from the infobox. I currently have no information on when Justinian was actually buried, so I have left the entry blank. --Chewings72 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Religious Relations with Rome

I am questioning the neutrality and encyclopedic style of the section regarding Justinian's relationship with Roman Christianity. It seems at times written more like a school assignment arguing one side, and there is a visible bias against Western Christianity (what would become Roman Catholicism). Please correct me if I am out of place here. I have not read the entire article, but I will only place the POV template on this particular section for the time being.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus1 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And rightfully so, Timotheus1. I have overhauled this section, cutting it down in size and removed all the POV pushing and silly name calling. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear. It is important to get balance. I am pleased that the article has been overhauled for factuality but it really does go a bit overboard in making him so saintly -- which is only one perspective, even if it is an official position of the Church. It would be appropriate historically, to indicate the effect Justinian's rule had on the world apart from his unification and spread of Christianity. For instance, the closing of the Plato Academy hat the Neoplatonists had revived was a major blow to philosophy, and the final closing of the thousands of years of tradition in Egypt as 'pagans' were forced to adopt Justinian's religion. I don't have the wherewithal to fight this corner, but there must be some historians who would like to add some balance. Most of my references to Justinian are in print books so not that helpful for Wiki perhaps(?) but here's a starter. He might have been a saint to the Christian world -- or that part of the Christian world that accepted mainstream doctrine -- but as always with the losers in a political battle, he was the opposite to most of the others.

The Code of Justinian, which it seems extended the use of torture, is not mentioned, and the page on Wiki is equally sanitised to make Justinian look saintly

ignoring this sort of abuse for instance

Suppression of religious and intellectual freedom by Justinian has been noted in the small print of wiki elsewhere: "The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies, has been cited repeatedly by Christian authors who endorsed an idea of religious persecution."

[wiki link] and a scholarly article here:*.html

Good luck! Parzivalamfortas 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talkcontribs)

Deleted info

I don't know why was recent info deleted I added that Justinian never spoke Greek, it was well sourced. It is said in another one "Justinian s government was Roman and the language of the government - Latin" see here . I don't know how you can be so rude with Ip-users everybody is labelling me a sock the investigation will revail that is not true. Maybe I should create an account finally. Don't bite new users. And nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone - just labelling me a sock. That's not nice, some users have the right to edit anonimously here. -- (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone" Really? I rather don't think that is the case. I at least used the edit summaries to pass you a message, which you blithely ignored at least once. More to the point, if you wish to edit an article, you have to have a modicum of knowledge about it, and writing the nonsense you wrote about Greek and Latin, you obviously don't. And this is remarkably similar to another edit-warring user active in these articles recently. Plus, for a "new user" you are remarkably conversant in wiki-speak, what with edit summaries and "Don't bite new users". I hope to be disproven about that, but let's see... Constantine 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The source you cite above states that the Greek language had become "the ordinary dialect in use at court," so listing both the Latin and Greek translations of his name is completely appropriate. And whether you are a sock or not, you appear to be engaged in edit wars on numerous pages. Please stop your disruptive editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"Justian is somehow labelled by modern Greek historiography as the conqueror-hero of Rome, while his wars aimed at restoration of the old Roman Empire and he himself did not even speak Greek." [got this quote from here]

As for experience, I used to edit Wikipedia as an IP since six years at least but I have the right to stay anonymous, I am often treated bad as a newcomer that is what I meant by don't bite. As for sock puppet labels, it is inappropriate when you don't know, but the investigation prove that we edit at least from different countries with that user. Not any valid reasons were stated except "sockpuppet". So I know everybody is tendencious towards their nationality, but please keep a neutral point of view as Greek, avoid biased edits. Justinian didn't speak Greek first, second - logicaly then he is not Greek by origin but Thraco-Illyrian, third- Latin was the language of the government at tge time. Before the legalization if Greek in 620 there were Roman emperors of Greek ancestry, even writers in Greek, for all these it would be relevant to include the Greek name, but Justinian was not one of them. I think I evidenced all these three. I thus reckon this name is relevant exactly forthis guy. Justinian was not at the court but at the government. I hope we enjoy this discussion and make a nice debate of this. :-) -- (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointy editing

It would appear that Firefox lani is disrupting this article to make a point by adding a constant stream of sources, of which one was by a singer, to extol what appears to be a misguided nationalistic intent for Justinian's ethnicity! I see no need for more than 3 or 4 sources for a particular issue. As it stands right now, there are 10 sources for Justinian's "Illyro-Roman" ethnicity/ancestry, which apparently means something terribly important to Firefox lani.

Continuing with Firefox's disruptive editing is his attempt to remove a source, which he did not properly research, stating, "Robert Browning appears to be a poet, not an historian", undoubtedly since he could not do the proper research concerning his own unreliable source(Eno Koço appears to be a singer, not an historian, Firefox's removal appears to be nothing but a pathetic revenge edit, by the way here is Robert Browning (Byzantinist).

I propose we limit the number of sources for Justinians "ethnicity" to a maximum of 4 sources. I do not see this as a huge issue, granted I'm not motivated by any nationalistic agenda, but when it disrupts an article then measures need to be taken. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not motivated by nationalist propagandas..I just find highly unreliable that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian..He was born in Tauresium, in a land who was inhabited by the Dardanians, who were an Illyrian tribe.And about the sources, I don't think that it would be a big problem if I add more than 3 sources about his Illyrian origin, since his ethnic origin is debatable.Maybe 10 are too much, but at least I can add 6 sources --Firefox lani (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"I just find highly unreliable that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian."
And yet your opinion means nothing here.
I believe 3 sources per ethnicity is more than sufficient. Anymore is simply citation overkill which appears to be someone trying to make a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You didn't understood me well...The point was that, just because I find unlikely that Justinian was Thracian and not Illyrian(based on many evidences like I mentioned before), does not make me motivated by nationalist propagandas..And about the citation overkill, we can solve this problem very easily, by putting multiple sources into a single footnote number, like this example --Firefox lani (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The origin of your motivations is not really relevant. What is relevant is that apparently they do exist and because they are rather strong they have led to WP:CITEOVERKILL. Three citations for each side of the argument is enough. There is no need to convert this into a soccer match where the number of citations for each side is treated like a goal aiming to win the match. If there is a reliable source saying that there is a controversy or that he was likely Thracian or Illyrian you can add it but you cannot try to shift the argument through adding more sources favouring your side. This is not a citation arms race. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
My point is not making a citation race..If so, then I can find more than 20 sources in a short time and add.My point is to contribute in an issue that is debatable..Maybe 10 sources were too much, I agree with you in that, but at least 5 wouldn't have been too much.And I want to end this discussion here, and I don't think it would be good if we would engage in an edit war over and over again.--Firefox lani (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefox lani (talkcontribs) 15:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So you edit war instead? Clearly you are just here to make a point regarding one possible ethnicity for Justinian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's you who is making a war edit.Despite my sources being reliable you are just deleting them.How do I violate Wikipedia rules, if I contribute with 2 or 3 more sources??Better go and warn those who are vandalizing Wikipedia, instead of checking me all the time and repeatedly deleting my edits, just because I add 2 or 3 more reliable sources.--Firefox lani (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, three RS are enough. Four or five are too much. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Article needs major revision

This article is a complete mess; it is nothing but an unorganized collection of different topics related to Justinian. It doesn't have a clear beginning and ending. Whoever wrote this, I can only assume that he/she has no experience in writing. Most sections in the article would be better located in an article about Byzantium during Justinian's reign, but not on his biography. --Lecen (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Empire entered a period of territorial decline not to be reversed until the 9th century."

This doesn't make sense, a decline did come, but not until really several decades later, when Maurice was assassinated by Phokas in 602, starting the devastating Byzantine-Sassanid war. Up until this point, there was mismanagement which led to the loss of land in Italy, but there was also great land gains by Maurice in the East, so territorially there was no decline. Economically Justin the Younger wasn't the greatest emperor, but Tiberius, and Maurice did a good job, the northern borders were kept more or less safe after Justin the Younger's death; Maurice even had expeditions go north of the Danube. So I don't quite see this at all. If no one objects, I'd like to remove this sentence. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Agreed. What's the point of crystal ball gazing a few centuries ahead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Overhauling Results Section

The current results section does quite a bit of speculative history. Specifically: "The greater part of Italy would be lost to the invading Lombards three years after Justinian's death (568), the newly founded province of Spania was completely recovered by the Hispanian Visigoths in 624 under the leadership of Suintila, and within a century and a half Africa would be forever lost for the empire to the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates during the Muslim conquests.

Events of the later years of the reign showed that Constantinople itself was not safe from barbarian incursions from the north, and even the relatively benevolent historian Menander Protector felt the need to attribute the Emperor's failure to protect the capital to the weakness of his body in his old age.[59] In his efforts to renew the Roman Empire, Justinian dangerously stretched its resources while failing to take into account the changed realities of 6th-century Europe.[60] Paradoxically, the grand scale of Justinian's military successes probably contributed in part to the Empire's subsequent decline.[61]"

There are plenty of issues to critique Justinian, or to show the multifaceted dimensions of his foreign wars. Antioch was sacked because of a weakened frontier army owing to their redeployment to the west. We also see economic stagnation because of heavy tax rates. Furthermore there is the fact that the coffers were empty after Justinian's reign leaving Justin the Younger with a number of Barbarian invasions; these are all real results. However currently, these paragraphs we really begin going down the timeline. The conquests of the caliphates for instance, the article seemingly infers that Justinian's western conquests were at least partially for this, but the Battle of Yarmouk wasn't for 71 years after Justinian's death. To give a modern parallel to this timeline, this is like saying Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies were partially responsible for, I don't know, Obamacare, or Justinian thus the Loss of Africa is like saying Abe Lincoln's policies were partially responsible for the Iraq war; sounds absurd doesn't it? This section makes some pretty tenuous propositions with little to back them up. If there were some ironclad sources, then maybe we could talk but the last quote: "Paradoxically, the grand scale of Justinian's military successes probably contributed in part to the Empire's subsequent decline." Uses pohl, never bothers with a first name, a year, or a name of a paper so I'm left searching to try and figure out who this guy is, and the best I can find is an expert in Carolingian history. So my request is to clean. I have access to an academic library so I can go back over the articles cited by Haldon et alii and give more contemporary results. Or if there is iron clad consensus against this, then why not also credit Justinian with Maurice's and Tiberius' successes? (Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

I agree with you. There are actually several things in the current narrative that go beyond my suspension of disbelief.:

  • The invasion of the Lombards was a setback for the Empire, but not an overwhelming success for the invaders. The Kingdom of the Lombards (568-774) never had full control of the Italian Peninsula and actually lacked several of its key areas. The Byzantines maintained control of the Duchy of Rome (533-751), the Exarchate of Ravenna (584-751), and later the Catepanate of Italy (965-1071). And naturally the Republic of Venice (697-1797). started out as a subordinate state of the Byzantine Empire and gained independence in later centuries. The Byzantines remained one of the powers in Italy until the 11th century, when the Normans started controlling much of Italy. The Byzantine Papacy (537-752) was depended on the imperial appointment of the Popes.
  • Spania (552-624) seems to have declined in size and population before it fell. But they actually withstood several wars with the Visigothic Kingdom and fell 59 years following the death of Justinian I. Even then, the Byzantines remained in control of the Balearic Islands until the 8th century.
  • The Exarchate of Africa (c. 585-698) only fell to the Umayyad Caliphate in 698, 133 years following the death of Justinian I. The Rashidun Caliphate (632-661) was only a short-lived opponent and never held Carthage.
  • Menander Protector is a great source and often an eye-witness to what he records. But his history only covered the period from 558 to 582, and does not even give a full picture of the Justinian dynasty. The barbarians mentioned above are probably the Kutrigurs, which started invading the Empire in the last years of Justinian's reign. Justinian I manipulated them into starting a war with the Utigurs. The two nomadic people decimated each other, making them easy prey for the Pannonian Avars and the Turkic Khaganate.
  • The narrative entirely fails to mention the Plague of Justinian and its effects on the Empire. The Empire faced demographic decline, with the plague killing an estimated 25 million people. The reduced number of farmers led to the decline of both agriculture and trade, and a declining tax revenue. And while the main event took place in the 540s, "The plague returned periodically until the 8th century". Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree also. Despite seizing control of much of Italy, the Lombards merely represented a regional problem at best and were unable to become much of a naval threat. It could be said that the conquests of Italy, Africa, and southern Hispania secured the Mediterranean again. Let's not forget that the western Mediterranean was a real thorn in the empire's side while the Vandals had a free hand navally. Retaking these areas is what allowed Maurice to focus on the Danube and Eastern frontiers – Justinian's conquests were obviously requisite for his stunning defeats of the Sassanids and Avars. As such, I'd sooner blame Phocas for the success of the Muslim invasions than blame anything Justinian did. Besides, without Justinian's reconquest of Africa, Heraclius wouldn't have been around to bring an army to bear upon Phocas to give the empire a fighting chance in the early 7th century. I'd say the two main factors from Justinian's reign that subsequently "weakened" the empire would be the Plague and the lack of money – of which only the latter could be partially blamed on Justinian. I say "partially" because the plague no doubt exacerbated financial issues as Dimadick said. I think the article should reflect these basic facts as opposed to making sweeping generalizations about Justinian's reign and blaming him for events that happened several decades later.--Tataryn (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal opinions about the validity of Reliable Sources matter not a whiff - all that matters is what the SOURCES state, and properly summarizing/paraphrasing them. (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Justinian's Greek name Part II

Okay, so it is settled that Greek was the dominant language of the Eastern Empire. I am wondering about the transliteration of Φλάβιος Πέτρος Σαββάτιος as Flávios Pétros Sabbátios, which implies a fricative /v/ pronunciation of β ('v' as in victor) for flavius but a stop consonant /b/ pronunciation ('b' as in boy) for Σαββάτιος. Although maybe not everyone here comes from a historical linguistic background, is it being claimed that the Latin-derived word was pronounced /v/ (having changed from /w/) but the Greek β remained /b/ when it is probable that β had become /v/ by the Early Byzantine period, see Koine Greek phonology?Iotacist (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Iotacist

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"temporal schism"

"Religious relations with Rome" "However, the condemnation was received unfavourably in the west, where it led to new (albeit temporal) schism" Should this say "temporary" rather than "temporal"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Justinian’s reconquest - preplanned or not?

Ian Hughes claims in his book on Belisarius that the motivation for the reconquest was the internal chaos in the victim nations not some kind of grand plan Justinian made beforehand. Peter Heather in his book on the empire’s recovery under Justinian states that Justinian was probably partly responsible for causing Byzantine-Persian relation to sour. It seems illogical for someone to provoke their most powerful neighbour with the intention of soon moving their resources to the other end of his empire. The hasty peace with Khosrow can be explained by saying he wanted to focus on freeing Hilderic but the rest seems still seems illogical. In the article the claim that Justinian considered it his duty as a Christian emperor to restore the empire to its ancient borders is unsourced. Dorromikhal (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced material can be immediately deleted - you can tag it an notify the editor that a source is required in 24/48/72 hours, whatever. I sometimes give seasoned editors time to perhaps correct an oversight. (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)