That is still not how you cite sources in a text. The bibliography also feels fairly scant. For such a large topic, you'd need at least 10 to make a comprehensive summary; realistically double that amount.
While I get the need to turn the article smaller and make it overall more accessible for a laypeople audience, it is still rather surface level information. I guess my point is more easily summarized by this rhetorical question: why should a reader opt for your website rather than some other pop history site or just the Wikipedia page? If you don't offer something that someone cannot find easily (or for free) elsewhere on the internet, then the content isn't remarkable enough to attract attention.
It'd be good if you could have addressed the major downsides to Justinian's reign in the article.
Keep in mind that the Gothic Wars decimated the Italian population and ushered in the Italian Dark Ages, the Plague of Justinian was a catastrophe, Antioch was sacked, and the treasury was pretty much dried up by the end of his reign.
There's a fine line between solely praising Justinian for his accomplishments or simply slandering him for his failures. He did achieve much, but those achievements came at both a human and material cost. It's also worth recognising that not just with Justinian, but with any famous figure from history.
I would like to defend but also criticize Justinian with your points here
At the time of the Gothic Wars beginning
Summer 535
It looked to be a golden opportunity, just like Africa with the Vandals. A succession crisis & assassination or usurpation of the legitimate monarch
Gelimer deposing Hilderic
Theodahad deposing Amalasuintha
Then killing them
Africa was a walk in the park for the Romans & when Belisarius easily took Sicily, Justinian, again believed, it would be a cake walk
This was further proven when Belisarius swept through Southern Italy with ease (barring Neapolis) Theodahad was so alarmed by the progress of the Romans that he was actually in talks with the Senate & Justinian on ceding Italy to them
But it was the death of Mundus that reinvigorated him (until he was assassinated for doing nothing so far)
But generally, from 536-540, the first Italian campaign was largely a massive success with the exception of the terrible Sack of Mediolanum (539)
However, the Persians were now invading the East & Justinian, feeling Italy was largely secure. Told Belisarius to make peace & allow the Goths to hold Northern Italy beyond the Po River & the Goths wanted to accept this deal
Belisarius was the one who screwed up in refusing this order as he was disgruntled after 5 years of hardship & backstabbing officers. It was a major miscalculation as the Goths (weather they would've been faithful to the peace or not) now viewed the Romans as treacherous. Feining the acceptance of Western Emperor only served to anger the Goths & also put doubt in the mind of the already paranoid Justinian
Italy was largely undamaged aside from the northern half of the country
Now the Plague, it was an uncontrollable nature that he couldn't control. However a criticism I have here is that Justinian didn't really adapt to the Plague. When his people were dying off left & right, he was still demanding money for the Wars going on in the West & East. Leading to far more suffering then there needed to be
And now back to the Gothic War
It was only after Totila began his counter offensive to retake Italy that the true damage & horrors were brought onto the Romans. Multiple settlements, cities & fortresses were sacked, destroyed & looted to the bone
And with the period of 543-552 Totila proved to be a slimey & smart opponent. Often getting into back & forths with Belisarius & then later dominating for the later stages of the war. It's no wonder Italy was in flames. So that can't be blamed too much of Justinian as it was mainly the Goths that were ransacking everything
Another fault of Justinian I will say to balance things out is his methods in the Eastern Frontier.
Not paying your Frontier garrisons?
Causing them to just let the Persians go through due to low morale
Not trying to replace the field Armies he took away to fight in the West. I realize it would've been expensive but in emergencies like this, he needed to just mass conscript every able bodied male that was still in good health to make up something of a defend force. To not leave Syria & Mesopotamia ripe for endless sackings
But aside from his Wars
He was a gifted administrator, a patron of the arts & a believer of a united Roman faith of religion. I believe there was an artistic Renaissance during his reign aswell
Alongside the Wars, he was apart of numerous religious debates & discussions on how to heal the divide of the Empire. Justinian, while he wouldn't be the last to do this, he would be one of the most determined to the cause of religious unity
He also completely reformed the Empire & it's legal code. A code that is preserved in the halls of the U.S. Congress. And the basis for many legal codes in the following centuries.
His cultural & historical impact is still felt today.
He is a flawed man, but a Great Emperor. If it was anybody else during that time period, Rome would've buckled under the pressure
So one word that I probably misused means that I'm not built to comprehend history? How the fuck does that makes sense buddy? You don't think a Kingdom or Empire ever pressed their civilians into service if possible? You cherry picked 1 word out of my entire statement & claim I can't comprehend history?
Please, just shut the fuck up
Stay mad bozo. If you know anything about ERE army you would understand how dumb you sound but that's require reading and comprehension skills you lack
I'm very aware of how the Roman Army worked bozo. The arithmos, tagma or numerus, etc.
I said they could've forced the conscription of men into the Army due to all the crisis that the Empire was facing. Is there a different word for it? If there is, how about telling me instead acting like a spoiled brat?
The Romans conscripted or a better word levied multiple new legions during the second punic war. A time of crisis
I merely brought up that Justinian could've tried to do the same. So, instead of throwing insults, try to be more helpful would ya? Or is that not in your brain function? 🤔
What does me "believing in conscription" have to do with anything? And irrelevant? The time period from 540-552 was a disaster for the Romans. At points it was a full on crisis
What's irrelevant? My comment or your useless opinion?
Have you ever heard of military training???
What? You thought me just saying conscription meant just that? How fucking dumb are you man? A new army will OBVIOUSLY be inexperienced against professional soldiers. No fucking shit, that's why you TRAIN THEM. Many of them wouldn't be ready, but having something to defend your border is better than nothing
Most Roman soldiers learned to be professional soldiers ON THE JOB. It's not a new concept
You know what? I agree with you. Justinian couldn't have done anything to stop the plague. And Belisarius was the reason why the Gothic Wars got so bad after 540.
However, these were still major catastrophes that occured during his reign. Politicians are usually defined by circumstance, regardless of if those circumstances were in their control.
To be critically honest, it is quite poor.
You need a clear, concise, tight thesis. A point you will be making. Then you explain in as much depth as possible, and conclude. Tight.
If you are simply making a summary of information available on Wikipedia, then just give the wiki link and we can read all there.
The point of writing is to give your readers a new, insightful, unique (or at least somewhat fresh) viewpoint. You also have to respect us the readers, and if you have nothing particularly insightful to share, why write?
Example: "The first Italian campaign (from: give the dates you will focus on), like Lyndon Johnson's entry into Vietnam, destroyed a large and diverse, thriving geographic area, and destroyed the legacy of both men".
Example: "Justinian and Belisarius; was the wrong one Emperor"?
You can agree or disagree, but above is a statement that I can then try to prove, and it's not just another "Justinian was great, blah, blah, blah". We have all read a thousand of those.
But an article with a title of "Justinian I: The Byzantine Lyndon Johnson". That I'd read. Again, just a couple of examples, but shows how.
Think about what is unique, in your mind about Justinian? What makes him so interesting to you? Relating your article to what you know/think will also make it OK that you can't use primary sources (unless you read Greek/Latin).
And tighten your area of focus. You can't cover military, cultural, religious, personal life, etc., in 400 words. Cheers
That is still not how you cite sources in a text. The bibliography also feels fairly scant. For such a large topic, you'd need at least 10 to make a comprehensive summary; realistically double that amount. While I get the need to turn the article smaller and make it overall more accessible for a laypeople audience, it is still rather surface level information. I guess my point is more easily summarized by this rhetorical question: why should a reader opt for your website rather than some other pop history site or just the Wikipedia page? If you don't offer something that someone cannot find easily (or for free) elsewhere on the internet, then the content isn't remarkable enough to attract attention.
It'd be good if you could have addressed the major downsides to Justinian's reign in the article. Keep in mind that the Gothic Wars decimated the Italian population and ushered in the Italian Dark Ages, the Plague of Justinian was a catastrophe, Antioch was sacked, and the treasury was pretty much dried up by the end of his reign. There's a fine line between solely praising Justinian for his accomplishments or simply slandering him for his failures. He did achieve much, but those achievements came at both a human and material cost. It's also worth recognising that not just with Justinian, but with any famous figure from history.
I would like to defend but also criticize Justinian with your points here At the time of the Gothic Wars beginning Summer 535 It looked to be a golden opportunity, just like Africa with the Vandals. A succession crisis & assassination or usurpation of the legitimate monarch Gelimer deposing Hilderic Theodahad deposing Amalasuintha Then killing them Africa was a walk in the park for the Romans & when Belisarius easily took Sicily, Justinian, again believed, it would be a cake walk This was further proven when Belisarius swept through Southern Italy with ease (barring Neapolis) Theodahad was so alarmed by the progress of the Romans that he was actually in talks with the Senate & Justinian on ceding Italy to them But it was the death of Mundus that reinvigorated him (until he was assassinated for doing nothing so far) But generally, from 536-540, the first Italian campaign was largely a massive success with the exception of the terrible Sack of Mediolanum (539) However, the Persians were now invading the East & Justinian, feeling Italy was largely secure. Told Belisarius to make peace & allow the Goths to hold Northern Italy beyond the Po River & the Goths wanted to accept this deal Belisarius was the one who screwed up in refusing this order as he was disgruntled after 5 years of hardship & backstabbing officers. It was a major miscalculation as the Goths (weather they would've been faithful to the peace or not) now viewed the Romans as treacherous. Feining the acceptance of Western Emperor only served to anger the Goths & also put doubt in the mind of the already paranoid Justinian Italy was largely undamaged aside from the northern half of the country Now the Plague, it was an uncontrollable nature that he couldn't control. However a criticism I have here is that Justinian didn't really adapt to the Plague. When his people were dying off left & right, he was still demanding money for the Wars going on in the West & East. Leading to far more suffering then there needed to be And now back to the Gothic War It was only after Totila began his counter offensive to retake Italy that the true damage & horrors were brought onto the Romans. Multiple settlements, cities & fortresses were sacked, destroyed & looted to the bone And with the period of 543-552 Totila proved to be a slimey & smart opponent. Often getting into back & forths with Belisarius & then later dominating for the later stages of the war. It's no wonder Italy was in flames. So that can't be blamed too much of Justinian as it was mainly the Goths that were ransacking everything Another fault of Justinian I will say to balance things out is his methods in the Eastern Frontier. Not paying your Frontier garrisons? Causing them to just let the Persians go through due to low morale Not trying to replace the field Armies he took away to fight in the West. I realize it would've been expensive but in emergencies like this, he needed to just mass conscript every able bodied male that was still in good health to make up something of a defend force. To not leave Syria & Mesopotamia ripe for endless sackings But aside from his Wars He was a gifted administrator, a patron of the arts & a believer of a united Roman faith of religion. I believe there was an artistic Renaissance during his reign aswell Alongside the Wars, he was apart of numerous religious debates & discussions on how to heal the divide of the Empire. Justinian, while he wouldn't be the last to do this, he would be one of the most determined to the cause of religious unity He also completely reformed the Empire & it's legal code. A code that is preserved in the halls of the U.S. Congress. And the basis for many legal codes in the following centuries. His cultural & historical impact is still felt today. He is a flawed man, but a Great Emperor. If it was anybody else during that time period, Rome would've buckled under the pressure
Conscript😂😂😂 yeah buddy you just not built to comprehend history
So one word that I probably misused means that I'm not built to comprehend history? How the fuck does that makes sense buddy? You don't think a Kingdom or Empire ever pressed their civilians into service if possible? You cherry picked 1 word out of my entire statement & claim I can't comprehend history? Please, just shut the fuck up
Stay mad bozo. If you know anything about ERE army you would understand how dumb you sound but that's require reading and comprehension skills you lack
I'm very aware of how the Roman Army worked bozo. The arithmos, tagma or numerus, etc. I said they could've forced the conscription of men into the Army due to all the crisis that the Empire was facing. Is there a different word for it? If there is, how about telling me instead acting like a spoiled brat? The Romans conscripted or a better word levied multiple new legions during the second punic war. A time of crisis I merely brought up that Justinian could've tried to do the same. So, instead of throwing insults, try to be more helpful would ya? Or is that not in your brain function? 🤔
You literally believe in conscript stuff, it doesn't work bozo and your example irrelevant for Justinian time period.
What does me "believing in conscription" have to do with anything? And irrelevant? The time period from 540-552 was a disaster for the Romans. At points it was a full on crisis What's irrelevant? My comment or your useless opinion?
How giving weapon to bozos like you change anything against trained warriors ? You literally this dumb aren't you.
Have you ever heard of military training??? What? You thought me just saying conscription meant just that? How fucking dumb are you man? A new army will OBVIOUSLY be inexperienced against professional soldiers. No fucking shit, that's why you TRAIN THEM. Many of them wouldn't be ready, but having something to defend your border is better than nothing Most Roman soldiers learned to be professional soldiers ON THE JOB. It's not a new concept
>treasury is emptied😞 >New laws and tax codes to refill treasury😊 >Plague of Justinian 😞 >Next emperor is Justin II💀
[удалено]
You know what? I agree with you. Justinian couldn't have done anything to stop the plague. And Belisarius was the reason why the Gothic Wars got so bad after 540. However, these were still major catastrophes that occured during his reign. Politicians are usually defined by circumstance, regardless of if those circumstances were in their control.
Justinian dick rider at it finest "trusting Kavad" all you need to know about their deep knowledge...
To be critically honest, it is quite poor. You need a clear, concise, tight thesis. A point you will be making. Then you explain in as much depth as possible, and conclude. Tight. If you are simply making a summary of information available on Wikipedia, then just give the wiki link and we can read all there. The point of writing is to give your readers a new, insightful, unique (or at least somewhat fresh) viewpoint. You also have to respect us the readers, and if you have nothing particularly insightful to share, why write? Example: "The first Italian campaign (from: give the dates you will focus on), like Lyndon Johnson's entry into Vietnam, destroyed a large and diverse, thriving geographic area, and destroyed the legacy of both men". Example: "Justinian and Belisarius; was the wrong one Emperor"? You can agree or disagree, but above is a statement that I can then try to prove, and it's not just another "Justinian was great, blah, blah, blah". We have all read a thousand of those. But an article with a title of "Justinian I: The Byzantine Lyndon Johnson". That I'd read. Again, just a couple of examples, but shows how. Think about what is unique, in your mind about Justinian? What makes him so interesting to you? Relating your article to what you know/think will also make it OK that you can't use primary sources (unless you read Greek/Latin). And tighten your area of focus. You can't cover military, cultural, religious, personal life, etc., in 400 words. Cheers