"A bronze amulet inscribed with the name of God and magical symbols for protection against demons and the curse of the 'evil eye' has been turned over to authorities after being unearthed in northern Israel 40 years ago." Source: Live Science.
"The amulet, which would have once been worn on a necklace, is thought to date to about 1,500 years ago during the Byzantine period, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) . At that time the region was ruled by the Eastern Roman Empire, which was also known as the Byzantine Empire after Byzantium, the former name of the city it was based in (by then Byzantium had been renamed Constantinople and it is now Istanbul.)"
Beautiful night views of the walls of Thessaloniki. The infant burials discovered recently were found "east of the Roman-Byzantine eastern walls," according to the Archaeology News Network.
"Dozens of infants and children, possibly victims of the great plague of the 5th century, have been unearthed in an excavation at the walls of Thessaloniki." Source: Archaeology News Network.
"More than 200 burials, 90% of them jar burials, packed in a dense arrangement, were revealed by archaeologists on Kastrona Street, where they were digging for the redevelopment and promotion of the outer rampart in almost the heart of the city. Apparently this was part of the Christian cemetery of the Eastern Cemetery, which was dedicated exclusively to infants and children in early Christian times (late 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries)."
Note: These infants apparently died during the Plague of Justinian (541 - 549 AD). At the time, Thessaloniki was the second largest city in the Byzantine Empire.
"Many have claimed the Justinianic Plague (c. 541-750 CE) killed half of the population of Roman Empire. Now, historical research and mathematical modeling challenge the death rate and severity of this first plague pandemic." Source: Phys.org (May, 2020).
Note: This conclusion is based on mathematical modeling and modern plague research. The researchers "developed novel mathematical models to re-examine primary sources from the time of the Justinianic Plague outbreak. From the modeling, they found that it was unlikely that any transmission route of the plague would have had both the mortality rate and duration described in the primary sources."
Mathematical models are always suspect. Look at the flawed climate models used to support the global warming scam, for instance, or the discredited models created by Professor Neil Ferguson which were used to justify the absurd COVID lockdowns in the UK and to a certain extent in the United States. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if these plague researchers are correct when they say that the impact of the Plague of Justinian was exaggerated in the primary sources. Ancient and medieval writers aren't known for their reliability when it comes to things like the size of armies, casualty figures, and so on.
Byzantine historians like the great Procopius had no way of knowing how many people had died in the plague -- it's not like anybody was compiling accurate statistics back then -- but I'm not sure it really matters. The Plague of Justinian has been called one of the deadliest pandemics in history, killing something like 15-100 million people, but if this new research is accurate the outbreak was more like the Third Plague Pandemic which started in 1855 and only killed around 12 million people in India and China. There's a big difference between 100 million deaths and 12 million deaths, of course, but we're still talking about a major disaster.
Some books are dangerous. For various reasons, they're dangerous to read or to possess and their authors sometimes take huge risks to write them. Books can be dangerous because of the knowledge they contain, e.g., the medieval grimoires of black magic; and some books, like the illegal English translations of the Bible before the English Reformation, are dangerous simply because they exist. Back in the medieval world, the people who wrote or read these books were often persecuted and sometimes executed in grisly ways.
Some books are dangerous because they expose the crimes and moral degeneracy of the powerful. The Secret History by Procopius is a good example of this kind of forbidden book. At the time it was written, it was probably the most dangerous book in the western world. If not, it was certainly dangerous to its author, who would have almost certainly been put to death after prolonged torture if his masters, the rulers of Byzantium had found out what he was writing about them.
"Having dutifully written the official war history of Justinian's reign, Procopius turned around and revealed in The Secret History the other faces of the leading men and women of Byzantium in the sixth century. Justinian, the great law-giver, appears as a hateful tyrant, wedded to an ex-prostitute, Theodora; and Belisarius, the brilliant general whose secretary Procopius had been, is seen as the pliable dupe of his wife Antonina, a woman as corrupt and scheming as Theodora herself." -- Procopius, The Secret History, Penguin Classics.
Procopius goes relatively easy on the general Belisarius, who comes off as a hapless cuckold easily manipulated by the treacherous Antonina. Most of The Secret History is devoted to a detailed survey of the lurid crimes and personalities of the emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, the absolute rulers of the Christian Byzantine empire. Both of these admittedly accomplished monsters are now considered saints by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Procopius describes Justinian and Theodora as literal demons in human form, bloodthirsty psychopaths who committed bestial murders, betrayed their loyal friends and supporters, seized businesses and property in order to enrich themselves and corrupted the state for their own benefit as a matter of routine. The emperor was "dissembling, crafty, hypocritical, secretive by temperament, two faced..." Theodora was a deranged, power-mad slut, cruel and scheming, a former dancing girl and whore, intelligent but "malicious in the extreme."
Procopius writes: "In view of all this, I, like most of my contemporaries, never once felt that these two were human beings: they were a pair of blood-thirsty demons and what the poets call 'plaguers of mortal men'. For they plotted together to find the easiest and swiftest means of destroying all races of men and all their works, assumed human shape, became man-demons, and in this way convulsed the whole world." -- The Secret History, p.102.
In The Secret History, Justinian and Theodora are like the shape-shifting reptilians of modern conspiracy theories. According to Procopius, "some of those who were in the Emperor's company late at night, conversing with him (evidently in the palace) -- men of the highest possible character -- thought that they saw a strange demonic form in his place." -- Ibid, p.103. One of these witnesses claimed to see Justinian's head disappear while he paced around the room:
"A second man said that he stood by the Emperor's side as he sat, and saw his face suddenly transformed into a shapeless lump of flesh: neither eyebrows nor eyes were in their normal position, and it showed no other distinguishing features at all; gradually, however, he saw the face return to its usual shape." -- Ibid, p.103.
The Secret History is a classic example of what we would now call a political hit piece. After discussing the relationship between Belisarius and Antonina, Procopius goes on to describe in vivid detail "Justinian's Misgovernment," "The Crimes of Theodora," "The Destruction Wrought By The Demon Emperor," "The Ruin Of Various Classes Of The Community," and how "Everyone And Everything [was] Sacrificed To the Emperor's Greed," just to quote the chapter headings.
Note: I'm not sure if the chapter headings are used in the original manuscript. The book was apparently given the title "The Secret History" by later scholars.
Is The Secret History authentic? The book is so unlike Procopius's other works -- his history of Justinian's wars and his pandering description of the emperor's admittedly fantastic building projects -- that some scholars have wondered if The Secret History was actually written by Procopius at all. However, according to the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition, written by the translator, G.A. Williamson, the book is most likely authentic.
The question is why Procopius would have written such a vicious attack in the first place. It was an extremely dangerous thing to do, to say the least, and he couldn't have published it while the emperor and his wife were still alive and in power. Williamson argues that no one would have forged the book for the same reason. If they couldn't publish it, what would be the point? Furthermore, nothing in The Secret History contradicts the information in Procopius's other books and he most likely thought he could get it published after Justinian died. One way or another, Procopius must have taken extraordinary measures to safeguard the manuscript while he was working on it.
I can only imagine what Justinian and Theodora would have done to Procopius if they had discovered what he was writing about them. They would have executed him, naturally, but how? Considering their well-deserved reputation for cruelty, whatever method they used wouldn't have been gentle or quick. I like to imagine Procopius working on his manuscript by candlelight in a locked chamber in the middle of the night, constantly on the alert for approaching footsteps. He must have hidden the scrolls somewhere safe -- under a loose floorboard, maybe, or behind a stone in the wall. If you're writing a book that could get you blinded, flayed and burned alive, you're not going to just leave it lying around on your desk.
Theodora died, maybe of cancer, in 548 AD, Justinian about 20 years later. The Secret History is thought to have been written around the same time that Procopius wrote books 1-7 of his history of the wars, according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD, 3rd ed. revised). "The Secret History covers roughly the same years as the first seven books of the History of Justinian's Wars and appears to have been written after they were published," according to Wikipedia. "Current consensus generally dates it to 550 or 558, or maybe even as late as 562." Justinian died in 565, so if these dates are correct Procopius had to keep the Secret History secret for several years at least.
The Secret History "is a virulent, uncritical, and often scurrilous attack on the whole policy of Justinian and on the characters of the emperor and his consort, which can only have been circulated clandestinely so long as Justinian was alive. It provides a kind of subtext to the History of the Wars, and reveals Procopius as a diehard, if occasionally almost paranoiac, adherent of the aristocratic opposition..." (OCD)
Were Justinian and Theodora as bad as Procopius says they were? Probably. They were highly intelligent and competent in many ways, but never forget that these "saints" also massacred thousands of their own subjects at the Hippodrome during the Nika riots in order to hang onto power. Procopius may have been "uncritical" and "paranoid," but The Secret History is one of the most entertaining books I've ever read about the period. Highly recommended.
This reading is from the great Voices of the Past channel. The excerpt is from the medieval Book of Tang, but I'm not sure if this is the old book or the new:
English captions available. Should be on automatically.
"The historic Byzantine Chora church is returning to its role as a functioning mosque, having served as a museum for seven decades. Last month a similar reconversion was completed with Hagia Sophia, triggering backlash from Greece." Source: RT.
"On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordered to transfer a historic church in Istanbul into the care of the Religious Affairs Directorate and opening its doors to Muslim worshipers. A similar reconversion happened a month ago, when Hagia Sophia, which also had originated as an Orthodox house of prayer, was turned from a museum into a mosque."
Video from 2013 when the church was still a museum.
"The Church of the Holy Saviour in Chora traces its history back to a fourth century monastery complex just outside of the wall of Constantinople, which was incorporated into the city as it expanded. The walls of the current building have survived since a major reconstruction in the 11th century. The interior features gorgeous Byzantine mosaics and frescoes, which were created sometime between 1315 and 1321 and depict scenes from the New Testament." (RT)
Comment: I guess we're lucky that the Muslims didn't destroy the church outright, but I have to wonder how long it will be before they demolish or remove the Christian mosaics and frescoes. Next video (July 25, 2020) shows Muslims praying at Hagia Sofia for the first time in 86 years.
"After ten centuries of wars, defeats, and victories, the Byzantine Empire came to an end when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in May 1453. The city’s fall sent shock waves throughout Christendom. It is widely quoted as the event that marked the end of the European Middle Ages." Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Byzantine Empire had been in decline for a long time before Constantinople was finally captured by Mehmed II (The Conqueror).
"The fall of Constantinople was a huge blow for the Christian world but, although Pope Nicholas V called for a crusade to regain the city for Christendom, no concerted military response was made. Now styled 'the Conqueror,' Mehmed declared the city his new capital and claimed to be the rightful successor to the Roman Empire." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
As corrupt and crazy as its rulers were, the fall of the Byzantine Empire was a calamity for the western world and Constantinople, at one point the largest and wealthiest city in Christian Europe, has remained in the hands of the Muslims ever since.
"The modern Turkish name for the city, İstanbul, derives from the Greek phrase eis tin polin (εἰς τὴν πόλιν), meaning 'into the city' or 'to the city'. This name was used in Turkish alongside Kostantiniyye, the more formal adaptation of the original Constantinople, during the period of Ottoman rule, while western languages mostly continued to refer to the city as Constantinople until the early 20th century. In 1928, the Turkish alphabet was changed from Arabic script to Latin script. After that, as part of the 1920s Turkification movement, Turkey started to urge other countries to use Turkish names for Turkish cities, instead of other transliterations to Latin script that had been used in the Ottoman times. In time the city came to be known as Istanbul and its variations in most world languages." Source: Wikipedia.
The Greek Orthodox Church still refers to the city as Constantinople, a stubborn and commendable tribute to the past. If the Islamization of Europe continues at its present pace, we may soon reach a point where all European cities have been given new names.
One of the greatest legacies of the Byzantine empire, a symbol both of its religious mysticism and its secular wealth, the magnificent Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque after the conquest, later transformed into a museum and recently reconverted back into a mosque.
Comment: Was Attila a monster? I guess that depends on your point of view. He probably wouldn't make Esquire's Best People In The World List, but I think calling him a "monster" is inaccurate because the word implies that there was something inhuman about him, that he was unusually cruel and wicked. Attila may have been a thug, extortionist and mass-murderer, but he had plenty of company then and now. Piling up corpses in the pursuit of glory, plunder and conquest isn't exactly unusual in the pages of history. If anything, it could be called all too human.
The Huns were very successful for a while, but like so many warrior cultures who carved out empires for themselves in a bloody, ultraviolent world, they couldn't hang on to what they had conquered. Despite all the mayhem they caused, their lasting contribution was probably the role they played in the collapse of the western Roman empire.
Ironically, the Germanic tribes might not have overrun the Roman frontier the way they did (or at least when they did) if the Romans hadn't been so successful at keeping the barbarians out in earlier times. Frustrated in their search for new land to the west, the Ostrogoths, in particular, started to expand to the east where they collided with the Huns in the region north of the Caspian and Black seas.
"In 372, the eastward expansion of the Ostrogoths provoked an explosive reaction from the Huns of the Volga steppe," according to The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, p. 12. "The Ostrogothic cavalry was humiliated by the faster-moving Huns, whose mounted archers destroyed every force ... sent against them." The Huns then advanced all the way to the Danube, driving the Germanic tribes before them. Fleeing from the terrifying barbarian hordes, many of the Germans ended up flooding across the frontier into Roman Gaul. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Attila came along later, a charismatic killer who united the Huns and raised hell with the Byzantine Empire. His forces spread terror and destruction wherever they went, but his record in battle wasn't all that great when you look at the big picture. He invaded Italy, causing a lot of damage, but he couldn't take Rome. His campaign against Persia failed. He was defeated when he tried to conquer Gaul. He never gave up, though, and might have had more success if he hadn't died in 453 AD.
The Huns' role in the fall of the western Roman empire was indirect. They would probably have expanded into the West in any case, but as it turned out it was the Ostrogoths who stirred them up by intruding into their territory and pulling the trigger on the Romans in the process. The Huns were savage barbarians who slaughtered a huge number of people, but they were too wild to stay unified for long in the absence of warlords strong enough to hold them all together. Led by killers like Attila, the so-called "Empire of the Huns" rose to great heights, only to fall apart soon after his death, leaving behind a legacy of smouldering cities, rotting corpses and the ruins of ancient civilizations.
"Israeli archaeologists have published a 360-degree analysis of a rural, affluent Christian town in the Galilee that was most likely destroyed by Persian invaders in 613 CE." Source: Times of Israel.
"Unearthed in 2007 in a salvage excavation before roadworks near Shlomi and Kibbutz Hanita, the remains of the Byzantine settlement at Pi Mazuva are located in modern Israel’s northwest corner on the border with Lebanon. The finds include Christian iconography, a large house and a colorful, high-quality, partially preserved mosaic floor."
Note: "According to the researchers, there were about 140 Christian settlements in the region during this era, including 63 churches or monasteries. Another 13 settlements had a mixed population. Many of these Christian sites in the Galilee were destroyed in the Persian invasion."
Next video shows the remains of a 5th-century Byzantine church discovered near Jerusalem (in 2015?).
"The Nika riots ... Nika revolt or Nika sedition took place against Emperor Justinian I in Constantinople over the course of a week in 532 CE. They were the most violent riots in the city's history, with nearly half of Constantinople being burned or destroyed and tens of thousands of people killed." Source: Wikipedia.
The Nika revolt was set off by the Greens and Blues, two factions who supported different chariot-racing teams, but the outbreak of rabid violence that almost overthrew Justinian was a lot more than a simple sports brawl like the soccer riots we have today.
The Greens and Blues were loose political, social and religious associations vaguely similar to today's political parties. And chariot-racing itself was more than just a sports spectacle. According to Wikipedia, "The chariot races were important in the Byzantine Empire, as in the Roman Empire, as a way to reinforce social class and political power, including the might of the Byzantine emperor, and were often put on for political or religious reasons."
Justinian's government wasn't exactly popular with the rabble. The riots were a protest over political corruption, high taxes, budget cuts, legalized brutality, the slow pace of reforms, and a variety of other reasons too complex to go into here. His legitimacy as a ruler had also been called into question by military setbacks such as the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Callinicum in 531 AD (one year before the riots broke out).
Tension had been growing in Constantinople for a long time and the lowborn emperor and his wife, Theodora, weren't just unpopular with the masses. Some of the legal reforms the emperor managed to push through "made him unpopular with the aristocracy from the start, as they made it impossible to use obscure laws and jurisprudence to avoid unfavorable verdicts, further angering the aristocracy." (Wikipedia)
I'm skipping over a lot of history here -- a detailed description would require an entire book -- but the tensions finally boiled over into what can only be described as a massive insurrection against an emperor the historian Procopius described as a demon in human form.
The Secret History by Procopius is one of the most vicious and entertaining political hit pieces ever written.
The bad feeling against Justinian came to a head in the crowded Hippodrome of Constantinople when the rival Greens and Blues united against him:
"On 13 January 532, as the Emperor took his place in the Hippodrome and gave the signal for the games to begin, his appearance was greeted by an uproar. Suddenly, he realized that, for the first time, the Greens and Blues were united; and that their clamour was directed not at each other but at him. 'Nika! Nika!' they cried, using the normal word of encouragement -- 'Win! Win!' -- by which they cheered on the charioteers. In the past, however, each side had tried to shout down the other. Now, they were speaking with one voice; and that voice was not pleasant to hear." -- A Short History of Byzantium, John Julius Norwich, p. 63. (Highly recommended.)
Justinian managed to escape from the Hippodrome, but the city descended into chaos. According to Norwich, "the mob poured out of the great circus, hell-bent on destruction" and "for five days and nights the smoke lay thick over the city." The fires destroyed the Hagia Sophia, the most important church in Constantinople.
The violence made the riots we're seeing today look like child's play. To make a long story short, the situation got so bad that it almost brought Justinian's rule to an end. He was on the verge of giving up his throne and fleeing the city when Theodora convinced him to stay and fight, and once he made up his mind he didn't screw around:
"Fortunately, two of the Empire's best generals were present in the palace. The first, a Romanized Thracian named Belisarius, was still in his twenties. The second, Mundus, was an Illyrian who happened to have with him a sizeable force of Scandinavian mercenaries. Secretly the two slipped out of the palace, rallied their soldiers and, by separate routes, marched on the Hippodrome." (Norwich, p. 64).
The rioters had gathered in the Hippodrome to crown a new emperor, one of Justinian's relatives named Hypatius, and the two generals caught them by surprise:
"...they burst in simultaneously on the mob, taking it completely by surprise. No quarter was given; Greens and Blues were slaughtered indiscriminately. Meanwhile the commander of the imperial bodyguard ... had stationed his men at the principal exits with orders to cut down all who tried to escape. Within a few minutes, the angry shouts in the great amphitheatre had given place to the cries and groans of wounded and dying men; soon these too grew quiet. (Norwich, p. 64).