They did nothing wrong

She reconverted and was a valuable asset in dealing with the Monophysites

It's commonly accepted that the writer was completely full of shit, IIRC he also talked about her bodyless head flying around and hissing at people and shit, he basically made shit up to discredit her.

It's possible she was a whore (she was an actress) but the stories of her debauchery by Procopious are almost definitely fiction.

I got the anecdote wrong, but close enough.

"And some of those who have been with Justinian at the palace late at night, men who were pure of spirit, have thought they saw a strange demoniac form taking his place. One man said that the Emperor suddenly rose from his throne and walked about, and indeed he was never wont to remain sitting for long, and immediately Justinian's head vanished, while the rest of his body seemed to ebb and flow; whereat the beholder stood aghast and fearful, wondering if his eyes were deceiving him. But presently he perceived the vanished head filling out and joining the body again as strangely as it had left it."

>*clears throat*

Hi Justinian.

>It's commonly accepted that the writer was completely full of shit

Well his meme theories about justinian and theodora aside, "Commonly" in Veeky Forums terms tend to describe scholarship of 50-60 years before.

Nowadays scholars think Procopius might be telling the truth and he was not much of a bullshitter people made him out to be. There was a good explanation of the scholarly view of Procopius and how new evidence and examination portrayed him in a more positive light, I'll post it here if I can find it

Not a good shah to place, He failed more than he succeeded and at the end got BTFO by Romans

Khosrow II on the other hand..

Well I'm sure he was being totally forthright about Justinian 'No Head No Problem' the Great and his slut wife.

Again 50-60 years ago scholars viewed Procopius as "into the trash it goes", nowadays they believe he was not totally bullshitting and might have some truths behind his rage.

For example it was thought that the accusations of corruption and embezzlement were seen as lies to slander Justinians brilliant reign, nowadays not so much.

monogamy

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ETERNAL

Not even Procopius wrote that Justinian and Theodora were unfaithful to each other, and it seems that they were truly in love

Nobody is saying they did.

On a side note, I feel so bad for the Palaiologos family. Imagine inheriting the absolute trainwreck of an """empire""" that he did. At least Constantine died fighting

whats the best book to read on the Byzantine Empire?

Old view: CONQUEST WOOO!
New, more researched view: Overall it was bad.
1)It broke the Roman 'commonwealth' that had come into existence (e.g. barbarian kingdoms still recognising the Eastern Emperor)
2)Over stretched the armed forces
3)Over stretched, then gutted the infrastructure with his reforms
4)Devastated Italy's economy and stability
5)Ended up losing Italy to barbarians again anyway
6)Wasn't that good at paying the troops in africa, allowing for berber raids to fuck them up a lot

>bring war to land
>siege with no siege weapons, just starving them out

>it's not like h-he could have pre-edicted this would ruin the economy!!!!

1)The schism wasn't a thing yet
2)No, they were overstretched
3)Islam didn't exist yet

Eh, doesn't it represent his disatisfaction with the imperial family?

I've got the three volume set from the Folio Society that's just called "Byzantium." Can't remember the author but if you look up "Byzantium Folio Society" it'll probably come up. It's lengthy, but good.

Read Gibbon if you like but most modern historians agree that he's unnecessarily harsh on the Byzantine Empire. He attributes 90% of their decline and fall to Christianity, for some reason. He was like a 19th century Varg

If you're looking for just a general pop-history book then "Lost to the West" is decent. It focuses on how the Byzantines held out for as long as they could and how the exodus of Byzantine scholars and merchants after the Fall contributed to the Renaissance in Europe.

NOT NORWICH
NORWICH IS A LAYMAN BUT PEOPLE THINK HE IS A SCHOLAR
IF SOMEONE SAYS NORWICH HE IS AN IGNORANT FAGGOT

also avoıd lars brownworths lost to the west, another non historian.

Read Timoth Gregory History of Byzantium
Mango's The Oxford History of Byzantium and Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State are other general books. While Mango and Ostrogorsky's scholarly power levels are higher than Gregory I think Gregorys book is a better read, its also the most recent among them, with its second edition.

pirate them all and compare it yourself.

Holy shit, there's so much wrong with this post
>mended the Schism
That took place 500 years after their reign.
>retook more
The Byzantine Empire reached its apogee during their reign
>neutralized Islam
100 years after their death
>bits and pieces of the old empire
Most of it, actually. Italy, Dalmatia, the East and the Mediterranean islands. The Pillars of Hercules, and I believe parts of southern France and Iberia.

Ignore Gibbon.

>Byzantium Folio Society
The author is Norwich, ironic I wrote this without reading your post he is Lost to the West tier, basically pop. Not saying you should not read them but please don't consider them to be scholarly well researched works.

>hating Norwich

Fucking finally someone else who agrees.

>recommending Ostrogorsky

NO.

HE'S OUT DATED AS FUCK. DO NOT READ OSTROGORSKY.

>layman
I don't think you know what that word means. History isn't nuclear physics, it doesn't require some kind of extensive pedigree to undertake. Anyone with a mind for categorizing and analyzing sources and creating conclusions based on that can be a historian.

Half the historians that Veeky Forums worships were glorified fanfiction writers anyways. Norwich is a fine book, Brownworths isn't scholarly but there's nothing wrong with pop-history as long as you don't pretend it's something it's not.

Memegorsky is second only to Mango and his work should be noted if not read
I'm not reccomending him over Mango or Gregory still, better than norwich

Unless you want to believe that evil italians ruined the economy and made feudalism a thing in the empire, ignore Ostrogorsky

1)Italians boosted the economy, older works go for the now disproven '11-12th centuries were a period of economic deline'
2)Feudalism isn't a thing
3)It certainly wasn't a thing in the empire

THIS IS A LATIN EMPIRE THREAD NOW

All Byzantine emperors are a bunch of faggots by default. Only GOOD period of history in medieval Constantinople was when Enrico Dandolo liberated it and gave it to good Emperor Baldwin of the Latin Empire.

Fuck off Byzantines.

Norwich has a habit of getting...racial.

Haven't read his Byzantine work, but his Norman ones? He focuses on the 'martial qualities' of the Norman race. Or goes on about how Guiscard wanted to become the Emperor (ERE) due to the greed in his blood.

Memegorsky is outdated as fuck.

This

I never said it was scholarly and well-researched but a lot of people who are interested in history don't want to go to the annotated bibliography in the back and personally examine every source the author used. Norwich is fine if you want a general history of the Byzantine Empire and he presents it from a neutral enough viewpoint that it shouldn't permanently bias them.

That's why I avoid recommending Gibbon for first-time learners, but it's definitely something that someone with a good foundation should read sometime.

Also, normies don't want dry textbooks that say "In this year this man ruled and did this. Then he was elected to this office and did these things. Then this man killed him." They want to be told a story. That's why history was started, after all, to entertain.

Pop-historians get a lot of shit on Veeky Forums and it's unfounded. There would be a lot less history fans if everyone was introduced to it by a dry, boring scholarly work that reads like a Bible and is nearly as long

1)It was the Crusader leaders, not Enrico (he was in a 'fuck it I need to make my money back' situation)
2)It burnt down and trashed most of the administration
3)The first emperor got fucked by Bulgarians
4)It collapsed extremely quickly

>putting Ostrogorsky on the same level of Mango.

That's an insult to Mango, man

He was good in that he realized a portion of his ambitions at least

Also his dealing with religious dissent caused a lot of turmoil

>and creating conclusions based on that can be a historian.

Lets agree to disagree, If you are not trained in it you will write bad history. If you don't know modern and ancient languages, If oyu don't know the methods of history and only take an ameteur view, you will have a history but it will have faults, many faults.

Norwich is fine if you don't consider him to be a historian. I had more than a one guy who approached me and asked me about"scholarly work of norwich". It is as if people listening to dan carlin as if he is a professor.

Problem with norwich and brownworth is the lack of "I'm not a historian folks" caveat that Carlin autistically repeats every once in a while.
Okay I concede, ignore memgorsky but do check out Gregory's History of Byzantium
-Written by a scholar
-More recent (2014 for second edition)
-Not an ass to read
Oh Come on without Ostrogorksy there would be no Mango. He is proto mango

you need charmander to have charizard

My "martial qualities" I'm fairly sure he's referring to the Viking aspects of Norman culture. And I don't really see what's wrong with getting somewhat racial with people. Obviously the genetics behind Normans don't make them predisposed to be conquerors, but different cultures value different attributes, and therefore these values are encouraged while other values are shunned. I haven't read Norwich's work on Normandy so I can't comment on how in-depth he gets, but like I said there's nothing wrong with a few generalizations to give the reader a sense for what sort of things characterized a particular culture.

Confirmed Byzacuck confirmed.

In infernis arderet haereticus reputandus.

It's old fashioned as fuck and he makes accusations with no evidence + misleads and inserts 20th century styled racial views of martial races into his interpretations of medieval texts.

Good for a pop history. Shit for academia.

I mean he couldn't have known that the ostrogoths would drag the war on for so long after the initial capture of the peninsula

True, Ostro (and Runciman) are kinda the big founders of Byzantinsm in the west.

Wrong Normans.

He writes about the ones in South Italy

btfo desu senpai

Norwich is the comfiest though

Gregory is not a hard read and is more accurate

>basing academic reading on what is the most comfy, not what is the most correct.

Narrative stories are for little children, user

To give credit Gregory's introductiory book is really introductory, however the advantages are his scholarly approach so you get:
-further primary sources for the chapter, links to webpages that have procopius, anna komnena etc
-social and cultural history that norwich mostly skips out (although those parts are not as much as I want them to be, the book follows the known emperor/date type of history)
-better bibliography, charts, maps, even has an electronic sources section

It's an excellent college byzantine 101 book, you can't use norwich as teaching material, Gregorys book is easy enough to read but serious enough to be in college classes, even though its not an important scholarly work

1. Commonwealth was gonna collapse anyway
2. perhaps, still only happened because of the plague
3. ???
4. He couldn't have predicted how long the Ostrogothic war would have lasted
5. see 2
6. minor

1)You're been deterministic
2)No, the expansion of the empire overstretched them. The plague just made it worse
3) Research the top
4)Even without the war going as long as it did, Italy still got fucked (and the Senators all fucked off back to Constantinople)

1. The constant wars between the German states and earlier raids into Roman territory would certainly have ended it soon enough
2. The army could have fully reincorporated Italy without the plague, and the Ostrogothic war wouldn't have lasted as long

Fuck off sea jew, you did everything wrong. Now look what happened to Constantinople today with your meddling.

Crusades are supposed to be for gaining land for Christianity, not feeding it to roaches.

...

Are you merely pretending to be dumb?

>War of 540-562 results in him getting paid a large sum of gold and another annual tribute if he ceases his attacks on Byzantine/Eastern Roman provinces and cities; which he ignores in order to plunder more cities including completely razing Antioch to the ground
>After a treaty is concluded for this: he builds Antioch in Sassanid territory and calls it "Khosrow's better city of Anitoch"
>Lazic War results in the Persians being payed a constant nominal true by the Byzantines/Eastern Romans in return for maintaining mutual fortifications and garrisons against nomadic tribes and barbarians
>Known universally as the Persian/Sassanid equivalent to Caesar for Persian rulers
>Also famed as a Philosopher-King and known for his land and tax reforms and weakening of the feudal lords that made up the Wuzurgan
>Firmly disorganized and weakened the White Huns even before allying with the Turks to break their power for good permanently
>Forced Ethiopian ruler in Yemen to become a new vassal/client kingdom for the Sassanid Empire
>Final war with the Byzantines/Eastern Romans which was then under the aegis of Justin II, Justinian's successor and Khosrow I's successes on the field in Syria and the Levant reportedly causes him to go insane and abdicate
>"Not a good Shah"
user pls. Khosrow I was literally created to troll the Byzantines.

Fuck off James Portnow

You're a pop historian lying for the sake of a bullshit narrative.

Also, your production values are the textbook definition of cheating.

Why am I literally the only person to mention Extra Credits?

>History isn't nuclear physics, it doesn't require some kind of extensive pedigree to undertake.
It absolutely does. You can teach yourself nuclear physics but you probably won't be as good at it as someone who studies it for a living. Same deal with history. You can attain a working knowledge of the historical method and historiographical techniques yourself but only if you totally dedicate yourself to it.

>pretty much the only Veeky Forums thread I've ever seen discussing literature with any depth
>everyone's just yelling at each other as usual

thank you for the recommendations! I'm reading a Oxford history of the ancient Near East right now, so I'm leaning towards the Oxford recommendation, but will check them all out!

Thanks again!

>discussion about historians focusing on the byzantine empire
>no Vasiliev
W E W

because they're literally hiSTORY

they lack so much actual fact and background information that they have to do an episode on the factual inaccuracies they portrayed in a given series for basically every series

they let entertaining narratives override the need to address certain facts and subtopics

I mean they're alright (good even, with niche/obscure topics like the south sea bubble and the broad street pump) but they seem to be pretty meh tier when it comes to broad topics

it's literally a bunch of people praising the author they read and shitting the authors they've merely read reviews about

>Not reading a source, then reading the reviews of it

Wew.

Because there are better.

I've read Vasiliev, Ostro, Runciman and Norwich. They're all alright for their time, and are valuable for historiography. But for modern, accurate arguments and debates with the new archaeological evidence?

They're shit.

He got btfo by Maurice at the end and was kept in jeck by Justinian for the most time

Khosrow II was achieved far more when it come to fighting romans, but he is not "le philosopher king" so alireza diasporahzades tend to ignore him

Nigga, actual historians do this:

pastebin.com/cj7PzxSa

wat

He killed one TRILLION Lybian blacks!

History of the Byzantine state by Ostrogorsky.
Here, i'll spoon feed you
scribd.com/document/253891001/George-Ostrogorsky-History-of-the-Byzantine-State

Don't listen to this user.

He's posting outdated works which give a terrible impression of the Empire, 'specially in the 11th to 13th centuries

>btfo by Maurice
Maurice lost most of his battles against the Sassanids, lol. The last war ended in another truce because Maurice didn't even engage Khosrow in direct battles, he just went around sacking Sassanid cities.

Your concept of "btfo" is wholly nonsensical.

>alireza disaphorahzades

Oh your *that* faggot from the other thread, knew it.

>also avoıd lars brownworths
>also avoıd
>ı
t. Mehmet

Ottoroach lies

wat

>claim is by a fellow Greek at the same time period (who got upset and just slandered)
>ottoroach lies

What did he mean by this?

>ottomans
>existing in the times of Justinian

kill yourself, retard.
also she was literally a whore

She was an actress.
The 'eeeey what a whore' is from the 'Secret History'. Which was basically 'WAAAAAAAAH THEY HAVE DISPLEASED ME. I SHALL WRITE SLANDER ABOUT THEM'

>/pol/

>Khosrow I the Just
>Khosrow I whose nicknamed and titled the "Immortal Soul"
>"Not a good Shah"
user...

>persian lover

t. Arab

>you have to be an arab to hate the easterners

>you have to be Iranian to like Iranians
Right back at you, dork.

belisarius took rome though, it could have been successful

>implying it's not Roman to hate the persians

You aren't Roman.

Or is he?

He is not, he is persian

Theodora was a thot

Born again Christian.

For the Byzantines he did nothing wrong. But for history I would say that he destroyed any remnants of the Roman world in the West.

Original insulter here:
I never said that the Persian lover was persian.