How Did Justinian Influence The Byzantine Empire

Justinian is widely regarded by historians as one of the greatest emperors of the Byzantine Empire. The empire’s achievements under his rule were great in scale and scope. From the reconquest of Africa to the complete overhaul of Constantinople, Justinian accomplished a great deal as Emperor. However, his governing style was not always used in the best interest of the citizens. In The Secret History, Byzantine “historian” Prokopios attacks the character and leadership of Justinian. While some historians believe that these attacks were unjustified, there is evidence that there was a clear dissension and hatred for Justinian within the Byzantine empire at the time of his rule. Prokopios accuses Justinian of ruling as a self-interested tyrant

motivated by anger. Examination of other primary sources from this time period show that these claims are substantiated. Therefore, the depiction of Justinian in The Secret History is accurate.
In The Secret History, Prokopios worked to show that Justinian was not a great emperor, but rather a ruthless tyrant that held little to no support of the people.

He writes, “Whatever had been before by law, he now introduced into the government…as if he had been given the robes of an Emperor on the condition he would turn everything topsy-turvy.” Justinian was known to be abusive of his power. Some of the people of the empire simply accepted this as a cost of the growing power of the empire. However, there citizens did not take to this growing state power well. This created a great divide between those who supported Justinian and those who resented his power. In response to these divisions, Prokopios claimed that, “The country people, however, banded together and determined to take arms against the Emperor…” As described by The Secret History, Justinian was not well liked by the people of the Byzantine empire. He ignored laws and basic human rights and acted as a dictator. Prokopios maintained that Justinian was not the great emperor of the Byzantine empire, but rather he was a

divider.
While some of Prokopios’ claims may have been slightly exaggerated, there is evidence that there was not a great amount of support of Justinian throughout the empire. For example, there were various uprisings that took place under the rule of Justinian. The most significant of which was the Nika Revolt of 532. This revolt took place due to Justinian’s oppression and tax collection policies. This dissension shows that Prokopios’ argument can be supported. If one examines the poetry of the era of Justinian’s rule, there are common themes. For instance, Agathias wrote a humorous poem about a bathroom, writing, “I am a place, divided up by brick walls, which before this was dreadful to behold…But Agathias, the father of the city, has transformed me and made me distinguished instead of dreadfully ignoble.” There is a great deal of social commentary in the writing. The division of the people while under Justinian’s rule is highlighted by this poem, giving further credence to Prokopios’ argument that Justinian acted as a tyrant. In an account a discussion between a faction leader and an officer of Justinian, Theophanes recorded of the dissension towards Justinian held by the leader of the faction, writing “Long live Emperor Justinian! May he be ever victorious! But, O best of Princes, we are suffering all kinds of injustice. God knows we cannot stand it any longer. Yet we are afraid to name our persecutor, from fear that he may become more angry and that we shall incur still greater dangers.” While Justinian did accomplish a great deal as emperor of the Byzantine empire, the existence of factions within the citizens with the beliefs recorded by Theophanes shows that there Justinian was clearly tyrannical to, at least, some of the citizens of the empire. Thus, Prokopios’ claims in The Secret History regarding Justinian’s tyrannical nature can be justified.
The final character analysis that Prokopios argues regarding Justinian is that the emperor acted only in the interests of himself, rather than the empire as a whole.

In The Secret History, Prokopios attacks Justinian’s treatments of his soldiers, writing, “I must not pass over his treatment of the soldiers, over whom he appointed paymasters with instructions to hold out as much of their money as they found possible…” In addition to attacking Justinian’s treatment of his soldiers, Prokopios also attacks Justinian for is mistreatment of the food supply. He claims that, “Most of the great stores of grain that had been kept in Constantinople had rotted; but he forced each of the cities of the East to buy what was not fit for human consumption…” Both of these claims are serious character attacks on Justinian. They attempt to show that there was thought about the good of the group over the thoughts of the good of Justinian. Rather than treating those who sacrificed for the greater good of the empire, Justinian looked only to make personal gains, according to The Secret

History.
While some of these specific claims cannot be substantiated, the character attacks on Justinian as a self-interested ruler can be validated through an exploration of the writing of other prominent members of Byzantine society. An account of the construction of the Great Church writes, “The emperor, thinking not of cost of any kind, pressed on the work, and collected together workmen from every land. Anthemius of Tralles, the most skilled in the builder's art, not only of his own but of' all former times, carried forward the king's zealous intentions…” The emperor built the great church with only his self-promotion in mind. With no concept of cost, the construction of the Great Church is an example of Justinian acting self-interested that could help to support Prokopios’ argument. Additionally, some poetry of the time could be seen to reflect the same sentiment regarding Justinian’s motivations. In another humorous, yet poignant, poem, Agathias writes that, “The stomach itself rids itself of all that the ravenous gullet has taken in, and a man finally sees that in the pride of his foolish heart he has spent all that money on nothing but dust.” This poem can be seen as a commentary on the material gains that Justinian made for himself while emperor. While many saw Justinian as a great emperor because of these gains, Agathias thought that Justinian was self-interested as a leader. The writing of prominent members of Byzantine society at this time agree that Justinian did not have the interests of the people in mind. Therefore, the accusations of the character of Justinian by Prokopios in The Secret History are accurate.
Emperor Justinian is an extremely successful leader in the historical sense regarding empires. He was a conquerer and a builder of great cities. However, these facts do not reflect the true character of Justinian the man. In The Secret History, Prokopios attempts to shed light on the motivations and character of Justinian. Prokopios attacks Justinian as a self-interested angry tyrant. While some of the specific claims on Justinian’s character cannot be validated, the sentiment on the character of Justinian in The Secret History is accurate due to the support of other primary sources from the period of Justinian’s rule.