Justinian the Not-So-Great

More like "the Infamous", Justinian II's story seems like something out of a TV drama series. There is murder, betrayal, greed, despotism, war, and facial mutilation over Justinian's not one, but two reigns (@Alegandron is going to love this guy ). The coin itself is an old acquisition and there are certainly better ones out there, but I had to have a coin of this hard-to-come-by Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperor. The patina is glossy so it was hard to take photos of.

Justinian II, Byzantine Empire
AE follis
Obv: No legend, crowned bust facing wearing chlamys, holding akakia in left hand and cross on globe in right hand
Rev: Large M, TNA-like monogram above (Sear type 38)
Mint: Syracuse
Date: 685-695 AD
Ref: SB 1296



Justinian was born to Emperor Constantine IV in 668 AD. The empire that Justinian was born into was radically different than that of his namesake; it had suffered greatly earlier in the century. Right after barely surviving intact after the long war with the Sassanians, the Arabs had united under Islam and invaded both former adversaries. The Sassanian Empire was completely conquered and the Roman Empire had lost much of its territory. The situation had settled down somewhat by the time Justinian took the throne in 685, enough for him to deal with the Bulgars, but with extra forces at his disposal he decided to go to war against the Umayyad Caliphate. His Slavic troops defected at Sebastopolis and contributed to the Arab victory there and Justinian's defeat. As a consequence, he massacred many of the Slavs in Anatolia. Justinian also harshly persecuted the Manicheans, and damaged relations between Eastern and Western Christians, and by extension the relationship between Constantinople and its western provinces.

He alienated both the aristocracy and the average people with his land and tax policies, and added insult to injury by largely using the funds for himself. These things along with his religious policies helped to cause an open revolt in 695, lead by the strategos Leontios. Justinian was deposed and had his nose cut off (contributing to his nickname Rhinometos, or "slit-nosed"), a Byzantine "tradition" that served to bar the former ruler from becoming emperor again, since the emperor was supposed to be free of defects. He wasn't executed but was exiled to Cherson in the Crimea. This would prove to be a fatal mistake for those in power at Constantinople.

Justinian soon started to scheme to become emperor again, in 602 or 603. He was found out and officials were set to return him to the capital, but he escaped and sought refuge with the Khazars, whose ruler offered his sister as a wife to Justinian. He renamed her Theodora, the same name of the first Justinian's wife. The Khazar ruler, however, was later bribed by Leontio's successor Tiberios to kill the exiled emperor. The two assassins failed in their mission, having been personally strangled by Justinian himself. He then lead an expedition with his supporters to reclaim the throne. He managed to enlist the help of the Bulgarians (one of the conditions being making the Bulgarian ruler a Caesar), and in 705 took back Constantinople. By this time he was now wearing a golden prosthesis in place of his lost nose. Justinian dragged Leontios and Tiberios into the hippodrome, and in a spectacle where he stepped on their necks in a humiliating sign of subjugation, had them beheaded. The Patriarch of Constantinople did not escape punishment either: he was blinded and exiled from the city. Their supporters were also slaughtered on the orders of the emperor.

Justinian soon renewed war against the Muslims, and also turned on the Bulgarians; he suffered defeats on both fronts. He also became more tyrannical against the population, and militarily intervened in the religious affairs in Italy. His rule was overall even worse than his first, so he later again faced rebellion, in 711. But the rebels would not make the same mistake the first revolt had done after deposing Justinian. This time he was executed, with his head being severed and given to the new emperor, Philippikos.





Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire a few years after Justinian's death, in 717 (striped area was raided by the Arabs):



Feel free to post anything you think is related!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Those are some scary pics! He is a tough one to get, for sure. I eventually gave up on bronze and went for gold (tremissis).

Great write-up too! (Some overlap with the one I did on Philippicus a while back: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-couple-of-rarities.296483/ ).

 

Excellent post!

 

..wow....

 

kool coin and write up. i have a Justinan but i think its of the 1st order. its a heck of a story on him for sure. i have read of another fella who wore a proboscis but he was a star gazer, Tycho Brahe. i believe he had a nose for every occassion, gold, silver and bronze.

 

Incredible story!! Yep, Brian is gonna love this guy

 

Thanks for the great writeup...very interesting.

 

A very interesting write up on a fascinating period in Byzantine history. Thanks! I collect novels on Byzantium because there are so few of them. There is one on Justinian II. Details are: Justinian by Turteltaub, H. N. New York : Forge, 1998.
ISBN: 9780312866990. A few of my Justinians follow. For some reason my solidus has gotten sandwiched between my semissis...



.

 

LOL, yeah, a True Pig representing(?) his People! You wrote this so well, I am going to have to continue my Roman Ruler through Byzantine captures up to and including this Creep! I actually had to check if I had him (yeah, I knew his Nose story!), but, nope, nary a one in my paws!

Nope, none of the posts show a FALSE nose on the busts... I wonder why?

I only have the Rulers through the REAL Justinian... the First ending at CE 565.

LOL, let's get the REAL Justinian up here just to keep it legal!


BZ Justinian I 527-565 CE AE Folles 30mm 17g 40 Nummi M monogram


BZ Justinian I 527-565 CE AE30 Folles 12-2g 40 Nummi M monogram

At least THIS guy expanded an empire, instead of just frittering it away.

 

Wow! Great history! I had no idea that Justinian had a Michael Jackson-type nose!

By the way, awesome coins!

 

From his dynasty (Heraclian), I have this tremissis of Heraclius:


Heraclius (610-641 AD) Au tremissis, Wroth BMC 93 - 94, 1.46g, 18.7mm, Constantinople mint, obverse d N hERACLI-uS pp AVG, diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right; reverse VICTORIA AVGV (the victory of the Emperor), cross potent, CONOB in exergue.

 

Thanks all for the compliments and posting your coins!

Fancy! Very interesting fact!

Great choice! Just as with BC and the earlier Roman emperors one will find just as many interesting histories with the Byzantine rulers, but I'm sure you knew this already
One Byzantine emperor that might interest you is Heraclius. Things almost worked out for him, but alas he was ultimately doomed. He killed a tyrant, nearly lost his empire due to the mistakes of said tyrant, fought long and hard to get back his territories, brought the fight to the Persians' own turf, won (and recovering the True Cross in the process), but basically lost it all when the Muslims invaded (he is the only Roman emperor mentioned in the Quran). I remember a quote from someone Wikipedia mentioned, that had Heraclius died right after he won against the Persians, (paraphrasing here) he would have been considered among the best and most highly-regarded Roman emperors. But his failure in defeating the Arabs tarnished his reputation forever.

 

Wow, that is a singularly impressive collection of JII!

 

Agreed!

 

Here my solidus of Justinian II during his first reign. - 4,19 gram and 19 mm, Sear 1247:





Here another solidus of the same coin just to compare, but it is NOT MINE:




A Roman emperor from the time of Augustus until Diocletian ruled for about 8 years in avarage. A Roman/Byzantine one from the time of Arcadius until Constantine 11 ruled for about 12 years in average.

But Justinian II ruled for a whole 16 years. And Caracalla, who also can be labelled as somehow wacko, also ruled for a long of 19 years reign.

 

You meant Heraclius killed Phocas?, and that Phocas was the tyrant?

We have to be careful here: the firsthand sources that depict Phocas as a tyrant are written by… the Heraclians. That is his enemies. And they were interested in depicting him in negative way. We have no independent sources from other hand that confirms the Heraclians’ smeared campaign. - A bell should ring here.

If some leading democrats accuse Donald Trump of having mental illness due to his (often irrational) remarks/behavior, then it is not convincing. But if some psychologists, independent from democrats, confirm it, and at the same time even some Republicans close to the President also confirm it, then the case is strong.

My point is that we do not know whether Phocas was a tyrant or bad since all the sources that depict him in negative way, are from his enemies. So we have to be careful.

Actually, it has also been suggested that The True Cross might have been destroyed by the Persians, and that Heraclius created a new one. – If it is true, then it is was a genial PR-effort of him.

The lost to the Arabs was not caused because of ineptitude from Heraclius or Byzantines. He actually did not participate in that battle indeed.

Byzantine-Sasanian war lasted for a long devastating 26 years before it ended in 628, and at the same time a plague arrived which crippled the Byzantines even more. Plagues tend to hit agricultural societies(such of Byzantines or Sassasnians) more than it tends to hit pastoral societies(such of Arabs) as the latter one can always move with their tents. So while the Byzantine Empire was devastated by the war and crippled by plague, the Arabs were “fresh”.

During the battle of Yarmouk the Arabs were outnumbered by Byzantines, but it has been argued that the reason was that Byzantines had filled much of its ranks with amateurs while the Arabs in contrary consisted only of professional warriors. It has also been argued that Byzantines army consisted of various nationalities which caused confusion within own lines while the Arabs in contrary consisted only of one language with no confusion.

Had Byzantines and Sassanians received better intel, and being aware that something was happening in Arabian Peninsula and that it was united under Muhammad now and that it was a threat for first time in history, then Byzantines and Persians would surely had stopped the war in time to prepare for it.(David Potter, “Rome in the ancient world”).

The other way that Byzantines should have won that battle, was that it was giving a couple of decades to recover instead of meeting a new fresh Arab army immediately as they did.

And unlike what many think Heraclius did indeed not participate in the battle of Yarmouk as he was an old man and resided in Antioch.

So taking all into consideration the lost to the Arabs was not caused of ineptitude, but rather of circumstances that were in favor for Arabs' Bedouins culture, particularly the 26 years war with Persians and plagues(which do not hit nomad culture such of Arabs'). – The Arabs simple arrived in a perfect time.

Heraclius was definitely one of the top 3-5 greatest emperors in term of military accomplishments, and his(and his successors’) military reform(s) were also crucial that Byzantine Empire could survive later and even defeat the Arabs during the second siege of Constantinople in 717-718, and later to expand during the Macedonian Dynasty. That defeat at the end to Arabs in 636 was really not Heraclius’ fault as there were not much Byzantines could do, and as he even did not participate personally in that battle.

Just some thoughts from what I have read and how I perceive it.

 

That's ignorant!

It's actually Michael Jefferson.

Erin

 

Wrong choice of words, given my lack of through knowledge on Phocas, ok, but what he did to Maurice's family was pretty low (I know he wasn't the only ruler that murdered his predecessor and their relatives), and his mismanagement of the entire situation can indeed make him considered to be a bad ruler, one that needed to be removed from power before things got worse.

I was not aware of this possibility. I am not well-versed in the literature nor do I really have the time to be so.

But he was the emperor, and his generals were operating in his name. While they didn't cause the Arabs to explode out of Arabia, nor the decades of war that just occurred, they had a duty to stop them, and in that regard they failed. Little blame can be put on the Byzantines for making conditions ripe for the Arab conquest, however, IMO. I mostly put it on Phocas and Khosrau II, even though they didn't mean for it to happen. No war caused by these two, the two empires would probably have beaten back the Arabs. I am aware that conditions were perfect for their rise.

Again, with my comment about his reputation I was just repeating the quote I read, and this doesn't necessarily reflect my thoughts. I'm sure some out there though who have an opinion on this matter believe Heraclius himself really dropped the ball, so in this way it is true that his reputation (not the reputation itself) has been negatively affected.

Again, I have not studied really in-depth all of the history of this era. I just rely on the couple of books I've read, the internet, and an Islamic history class I took a few years back, so please try not to criticize me and my knowledge too harshly.

 

Some of the blame should be assigned to Justin II, who refused to pay the subsidies that Justinian I had arranged with the Avars and the Persians, leading to disastrous wars with both. A very bad decision!

 

In the books brought to the screen in Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister has his nose cut off. The event in the book may have been inspired by Byzantine history. However, in the screen play, they had to change that to having his cheek gashed leaving a scar. (I suppose any actor would have objected to having his nose cut off, even to get such a wonderful role.) Jamie Lannister has his right hand cut off, but it is replaced by a hand-shaped prosthetic. I'm sure we can all understand how an actor can deal with that.