>Constantinople recreation
>it's 12th or 13th century
I wanna see peak Constantinople with a million people living in it not the half-ruin shanty-town of the 13th century
>Constantinople recreation. >it's 12th or 13th century
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Good luck with that pretty sure that dream died in justinians era
Justinian truly did everything wrong, bankrupting a strong empire and dooming italy to decades of warfare, crippling it's economy in the process, only for it to be retaken not too long later.
How is it that this guy gets so much praise? There were way better eastern roman emperors
>bankrupting a strong empire
He didn't do that.
>only for it to be retaken not too long later.
Muh foresight 20/20
>How is it that this guy gets so much praise?
His legal, administrative, construction and military work? He did more than just go to war you know, the last Emperor to do so much was Constantine (or Diocletian) and there would never be a single Emperor to do so much again.
Justinian's statebuilding work is much more impressive than Diocleatian or Constantine.
His leagal code was so solid that it basically remained unchanged for the rest of the empire's existence and when rediscovered by fucking 14th century leagal experts in the West they thought it was so solid that they ended up basing all our European legal systems around it.
The underlying Legal work wasn't impressive. Diocletian was the first Emperor to make a Codex, followed by Theodosius II then by Justinian. This wasn't a new concept. The importance of his Codex was it survived near completely unlike Diocletian's, which is lost to us outside of the later Codex's. Diocletian did a lot more Legal restructuring than Justinian ever did, as Justinian was working on Diocletian's work. Not to say that his work wasn't impressive. When it came to Administration, he was nowhere near as important as Diocletian, who established the entire form of the Late Roman administration. Justinian's main work was internal reforms and creating a new prefecture in Armenia (as well as an army). This is nowhere near the magnitude of work as Diocletian.
Justinian expanded on things greatly, but he was not anywhere near the 'statebuilder' as Diocletian or Constantine.
>He didn't do that.
He did. The empire's treasury was empty and this led to hardships experienced by Justin II. Tiberius II, and Maurice who even ended up dying from the cost cutting measures he was forced to put into effect.
>Muh foresight 20/20
You don't foresight to realize what a precarious hold on Italy the byzantines had. Barely any troops and resources were put into Italy. It just wasn't a priority. The conquest of Italy was the shortest lasting conquest of Justinian as well
>His legal, administrative, construction and military work? He did more than just go to war you know, the last Emperor to do so much was Constantine (or Diocletian) and there would never be a single Emperor to do so much again.
Only his legal work is praiseworthy
>administration
lmao he just split some provinces
>military
overstretching his empire and interfering with his generals makes him personally dogshit. Justinian is the reason why the second phase of the Gothic Wars was such a shitshow
>He did. The empire's treasury was empty and this led to hardships experienced by Justin II. Tiberius II, and Maurice
That's not what 'Bankrupting' means. It would mean the inability for the state to pay for its functions, which the later Emperors were able to do. The only admission of bankruptcy ever made was by Valentinian III as he quite literally could not afford the expenses of state in nearly any manner. That was bankruptcy. Not having a fiscal struggle.
>You don't foresight to realize what a precarious hold on Italy the byzantines had.
They were just supposed to know the Lombards were going to invade Italy, just cause?
>lmao he just split some provinces
No. His administrative work was largely internal and related to the departments, including introducing Greek to the administration as a legal language. The divisions and integrations of functions of departments to lower corruption and further centralize power
>overstretching his empire and interfering with his generals makes him personally dogshit
I said he did more than wars. His creation of the Armenian field army, creation of new high commands and the effective control of the military.
>It would mean the inability for the state to pay for its functions, which the later Emperors were able to do. The only admission of bankruptcy ever made was by Valentinian III as he quite literally could not afford the expenses of state in nearly any manner. That was bankruptcy. Not having a fiscal struggle.
Maurice had to abandon paying wages for his army and returned to diocletianic policies of payment in kind. Anathasius led the Roman empire to it's complete economic recovery and left a full treasury for Justinian. Justinian squandered all of this.
>Maurice had to abandon paying wages for his army and returned to diocletianic policies of payment in kind.
Again, that's not bankruptcy, Maurice was clearly able to continue payments to the army and afford the expenses which came with it. Otherwise we would consider every Emperor from Diocletian to Anastasius to be teetering on bankruptcy.
>Justinian squandered all of this.
You're acting like spending money as it comes in was not completely normal practice. The Romans did not practice reserve banking. The fact that Anastasius left anything was already extraordinary and neither did Justinian 'squander' his efforts. The economic situation did not change at all for him and the economy of the Empire would not suffer any significant severing until the 7th century.
>A large portion of the mercenaries employed by the byzantines were lombards and they saw the weak byzantines and saw their opportunity
The Byzantines also had treaties and hired out other peoples who fought in Italy and served in those regions and they didn't invade. Such as the Gepids and Bulgars. There is no reason to suspect that the Lombard's in particular would invade.
>The economic situation did not change at all for him and the economy of the Empire would not suffer any significant severing until the 7th century.
>returning to payment in kind is not a change in economy.
Justinian cocksuckers sre something else
>There is no reason to suspect that the Lombard's in particular would invade.
They were literally right beside the alps one of the land routes to Italy
>They were just supposed to know the Lombards were going to invade Italy, just cause?
A large portion of the mercenaries employed by the byzantines were lombards and they saw the weak byzantines and saw their opportunity. The Lombards literally invaded a decade after the end of the gothic wars
Watch more pop his youtube videos zoomie
Every pophistory video acts like Justinian was the 2nd coming of Augustus.
you mean when Basil II died
Nothing special happened when Basil II died you idiot.
Romanos IV being captured and getting 10000 soldiers killed was the point of collapse.
it was a decline because the succession and political problems after it led to the lose of italy and anatolia instead of fortyfying the borders (there were like 2-3 civil wars if I remember)
and romanos having to deal with mercenaries being most of the army was not something he had control over due to inheriting it from Doukas
Isnt this the emperor who called "Latin" a barbarous language ?
No. He MIGHT have done that, but we don't actually have any evidence that he did say that since the letters do not survive.
>with a million people
Justinian Plague and Black Death say hi