ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Feb 22, 2012 11:22:57 GMT -5
Justinian was indeed a revered emperor, however, Byzantium peaked under the dynasty of Basil II (ie. the Macedonian dynasty).
The height of the Byzantine Empire came about in the 10th century, while Justinian ruled some 5 centuries earlier.
You really do have issues with context and time periods..
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 22, 2012 12:13:56 GMT -5
You f**king moron, the empire peaked under Justian. Basil II doesn't come close to Justian's legacy, not because he was inferior to Justian, but because he had fewer resources at his hand. If you don't know history, you should shut your F mouth! What Basil did to you was something extraordinary, I wish he would've finished the job properly. Had he done that, then he would've been elevated to the status of a god. No one can be compared to Justian, even though Justian made some horrible mistakes.
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
Post by elemag on Feb 22, 2012 12:24:34 GMT -5
Your tasteless sentence ever.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Feb 22, 2012 13:36:23 GMT -5
Anittas, you're not well informed. Byzantium reached its height centuries after Justinian. If you'd like to discuss that, feel free to open a separate thread.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 22, 2012 14:01:43 GMT -5
You god damn freak, you need to be flogged! Under Justinian, the empire reached its highest extent in territorial expansion, religious reforms were completed during his reign as well as law reforms (which would become the basis for the Byzantine law that was to follow). Culturally, the empire flourished and he commenced the building of Hagia Sophia. He stabilized the empire and repelled the Sassanid Empire. He is considered a saint by the Orthodox Church.
I can't believe that I have to argue for that which should be the obvious. You bloody monster, you serpent of idiocy, STFU! Don't post no more in this forum, you insulator of knowledge! Get the F out! How can you challenge Justian's status as the most glorious Byzantine Emperor! Only Constantine could be put next to Justian! Get the F out of here! Unplug the internet cord from your computer and try to strange yourself! The internet will forever be in your debt. I know I will.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 22, 2012 14:58:33 GMT -5
Your talking about different empires here, Constantine was a Roman emperor, Justinian an emperor of Romania (Eastern Roman Empire) while Basil II was an emperor of by then a Greek Empire still calling itself Romania or Roman Empire. After 600 with the loss of the Latin N Balkans, the Empire turned Greek. Its lands were up for grasp and the Muslims were there to take them. The Easter Roman Empire downfall begun with the accursed plague of Justinian. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_JustinianSo maybe Basil II was the Greatest Byzantine emperor. I don't think it's fair to call the empire of Justinian - Byzantine, it was still a Roman empire at that time. The name Byzantine Empire should be reserved for the Empire after 610. Phocas was the last true Roman Emperor. He was a Thraco-Roman. Yet he brought the doom on his homeland by leaving the limes undefended. That's when the Asiatics poured in and civilization faded away from the Balkans. Phocas was overthrown by Heraclius - the first Byzantine emperor. One of Heraclius measures was to replace Latin with Greek as an official language of the Empire. With the lost of the Latin speaking areas to the North there was nobody to enforce Latin. The Empire was finally Greek and with the legs wide opened.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Feb 22, 2012 14:59:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 22, 2012 15:31:05 GMT -5
Your talking about different empires here, Constantine was a Roman emperor, Justinian an emperor of Romania (Eastern Roman Empire) while Basil II was an emperor of by then a Greek Empire still calling itself Romania or Roman Empire. After 600 with the loss of the Latin N Balkans, the Empire turned Greek. Its lands were up for grasp and the Muslims were there to take them. The Easter Roman Empire downfall begun with the accursed plague of Justinian. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_JustinianSo maybe Basil II was the Greatest Byzantine emperor. I don't think it's fair to call the empire of Justinian - Byzantine, it was still a Roman empire at that time. The name Byzantine Empire should be reserved for the Empire after 602. Phocas was the last true Roman Emperor. He was a Thraco-Roman. Yet he brought the doom on his homeland by leaving the limes undefended. That's when the Asiatics poured in and civilization faded away from the Balkans. Phocas was overthrown by Heraclius - the first Byzantine emperor. One of Heraclius measures was to replace Latin with Greek as an official language of the Empire. With the lost of the Latin speaking areas to the North there was nobody to enforce Latin. The Empire was finally Greek and with the legs wide opened. There were many political schisms in the empire; nonetheless, the name Byzantine Empire covers the period from its foundation in 395 until its fall. Yes, when it comes to Constantine, I suppose he wasn't a Byzantine emperor, even though some historians seem to count him as such; but Justian was a Byzantine emperor in all rights, even if he wasn't Greek and even if he spoke Late Latin in contrast to Greek, which was to replace Latin.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 22, 2012 15:39:34 GMT -5
The transition to Byzantine history proper finally begins during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by changing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek.
From Wikipedia.
I think we should talk about Byzantine Empire only beginning with Heraclius.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 22, 2012 15:45:33 GMT -5
Okay, I'll buy that ("history proper"). I still see it as a continuity, though.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 22, 2012 16:21:20 GMT -5
And in fact, if you look at his biography (on Wikipedia and academical sites), he is listed as a Byzantine Emperor. If we were to draw a parallel, I'd like to point out to England which was for some time ruled by French (from Normandy); and in fact, some look at William the Conqueror as the founder of England in 1066, yet England was founded and united earlier by Anglo-Saxons (and also recognized as such). Well, that's actually a poor example, since there's little political continuity between these states (William removed most of the Anglo-Saxon nobles); but this didn't happen in the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Heraclius, as far as I see it.
But yeah, like I said, there was a transition period with the latter forming the basis for the Byzantine Empire under Greek rule.
|
|