The first campaign of Belisarius in Italy (535-540) was wildly successful, restoring most of the peninsula to Roman rule. Did the inhabitants of Italy welcome this? One way to answer that question is to visualize how Belisarius took cities in Italy. 🧵 #Roman#Byzantine#History
Today I introduce a small digital history mapping project that does just that. The image shown in the first tweet of this thread is an overview of the map. The map shows every city or region of Italy mentioned during the campaign by the historian Procopius of Caesarea. #dh
The pins for cities and regions are color coded based on how long it took Belisarius and the Roman army to take control of the location. Green represents no effort (instantaneous submission), yellow represents a short siege, orange a medium siege, and red a long siege.
To be even more specific, I counted a short siege as three days or less, a medium siege as a month or less, and anything over a month as a long siege. Each pin also contains a short summary of how the Romans took the location and a reference to the relevant passage in Procopius.
I will talk about what conclusions we might draw from this project in the remainder of this thread, but if you want to get into the map and play around with it yourself, here is the link straight to the project in Google Earth: earth.google.com/earth/d/1JZBBq…
The first thing that stands out when looking at the map is the overwhelming amount of green pins, signifying locations that instantly submitted to Roman forces when they showed up. Of 36 total pins, 29 are green.
The preponderance of green is even more extreme when you consider that three green pins (Samnium, Apulia, Calabria) represent entire regions rather than just individual cities. Each of these regions contained many important cities that surrendered to Belisarius without a fight.
The second thing that really stands out is the distribution of the red pins, which signify fortified cities with Gothic garrisons that resisted a Roman siege for more than a month. All of the red pins are to the north of Rome.
In almost all of Italy south of Rome, Belisarius and the Roman army were welcomed with open arms by Italian Romans. Naples, where some passionate civilian leaders and a stout Gothic garrison encouraged resistance to Belisarius, is the exception that proves this rule.
In general, the map demonstrates that resistance to Belisarius and the Roman army was concentrated in northern Italy, which not coincidentally was the region where most Gothic warriors were settled. It was the Goths, not the Italian Romans, who opposed Belisarius.
This map does not by itself prove that the majority of the inhabitants of Italy welcomed Belisarius, the Roman army, and the restoration of rule by the emperor Justinian. And attitudes perhaps changed the longer the war dragged on.
But, at least at the start of Belisarius' first campaign in Italy, the swift submission of the majority of the peninsula to Roman rule does seem like it should count for something. Fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ostrogothic Italy in 526 was a successful, flourishing kingdom. By the time Roman forces had finished reclaiming the bulk of Italy in 555, the prosperity of the peninsula was ruined. Some modern historians blame Justinian. Is that fair? A 🧵 #Roman#Byzantine#Italy 🇮🇹
First, we start with a brief historical overview. The Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy, founded by Theodoric the Great (r. 493-526), was an early medieval successor state of the Western Roman Empire. Under Theodoric, the kingdom became rich and prosperous.
The death of Theodoric, followed by the death of his grandson and successor Athalaric in 534, led to political destabilization in the kingdom. Both Athalric's mother, Amalsuntha, and her murderer and successor, Theodahad, contemplated ceding Italy to the Roman Empire.
Welcome to new followers who found me through my thread on whether the Byzantine Empire was Roman! 👋 I am a historian with a research focus on the sixth-century Roman world, although my interests broadly range from the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople.
This is a professional account and most of my tweets are about my research. I tweet a lot about my upcoming book, #BelisariusAndAntonina, which analyzes the relationship and careers of this sixth-century power couple: a famous Roman general and his powerful and capable wife.
If you think my book sounds intriguing, you can get an early preview of some of my thoughts on Belisarius and Antonina by listening to my recent interview with the YouTube channel Eastern Roman History here:
I am shocked at the passionate response to my tweets about the Byzantine Empire being the Roman Empire. So today, a related issue: not recognizing the #Roman identity of the #Byzantine Empire creates problems for our understanding of the early Middle Ages. 🧵 #History
While many specialists of Byzantine history may assume that everyone knows that the people we call "Byzantines" were actually Romans, this knowledge has not fully permeated to the level where most people encounter the Byzantines: secondary school and university survey textbooks.
At this level, in classes like European History, Western Civilization, or World History, the early Middle Ages is sometimes presented as the era of the "three heirs" of Rome. These heirs are identified as the Byzantine Empire, the early medieval West, and the Islamic caliphate.
Was the Byzantine Empire really just the Roman Empire? In a word, yes. In this thread, I explore some arguments for and against that answer, as well as alternatives to the use of the term "Byzantine." Read on. 🧵 #Roman#Byzantine#History
The people that modern historians call "Byzantines" referred to themselves as Romans and to their state as the empire of the Romans. They were Romans, through and through. Then why have modern historians adopted the terms "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire?"
In the medieval west, standard terms for the "Byzantine" Empire were "empire of Constantinople" and "empire of the Greeks." They were used to avoid calling the "Byzantines" Romans, because westerners wished that label for themselves.
In the month of July, I will be reading "The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome" by Edward Watts (2021). I will provide a free mini-review by tweeting out observations on the book as I go, adding to this thread over the course of the month. #AHAReads
In the introduction, Watts makes clear that he will be showing us both "good" and "bad" * uses of the language of Roman decline and renewal (page 6). This is a bold choice, as it probably will invite lots of disagreement over which examples get placed in which category.
* He does not literally use the words "good" and "bad" but rather "enhancing the bonds that held imperial subjects together" and "with the intention of dividing their society." Good and bad seemed like reasonable shorthand for a tweet, but I want to clarify.
It has been a few days since @EpicHistoryTV dropped the new episode, "Belisarius: The Battle of Rome." Did you want to learn more? How about a behind the scenes glimpse at some of the decisions for the episode? Read on!
The map ca. 6:49 shows a good overview of what might have been Justinian's strategy for Italy in 535: military pressure on the Goths in Sicily (Belisarius) and Dalmatia (Mundus) and diplomatic pressure on Theodahad to cede Italy to him.
The order of battle (ca. 9:11) of necessity includes a number of estimates. The total number of bucellarii on the campaign is unknown, and the number of men left as garrison in Sicily is also unknown.