Before reading this article, please click "Follow", which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Text | Historic Exploration
Edit | Historic Exploration
Preface
To study Belisarius under the strategy of Justinian's empire, it is necessary to first understand Belisarius and his people, and historical materials are the most basic way.
The most detailed and valuable historical records of Belisarius are Procobius's two books, The History of War and The Secret History.
In addition to Procobius, Belisarius is described in the works of contemporaries such as Malalas's Chronicle, the Easter Chronicle, the Histories of Agaseas, and the Syrian Chronicle of Zachariah.
As a result of the relative abundance of historical sources, historians have different attitudes towards Belisarius's performance, and there are even many discrepancies in the records.
Mr. Gu Yangang once said, "If the historical materials are applied without review, although his writings are written in ten thousand words, the content of the study is all based on emptiness."
Therefore, this section aims to explore the differences in the image of Belisarius in different historical sources as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of Belisarius.
Procobie's Belisarius
1. Belisarius in the History of War
Procobi was a contemporary of Belisarius, and he followed Belisarius as a military adviser and personally participated in and experienced most of Belisarius's political and military activities.
Later, Procobi left Belisarius and stayed alone in Constantinople, and his descriptions in the History of War were based mainly on government documents and war reports rather than personal experiences.
The focus of the text is on the three major foreign wars waged by the Justinian dynasty, and the main military general is Belisarius.
Most historians have a high evaluation of the historical value of the "History of the War", and he himself repeatedly emphasized the authenticity of the work when he stated his writing position. Procobi believed that rhetoric needed wisdom, poetry needed innovation, and history should be truthful.
According to this principle, he accurately recorded every good or evil deed of a historical figure, never glorifying it, even if it was the person closest to him.
Referring to the reasons for the writing of the History of War, Procobi believes that the recording of these events is great, and that it can help both contemporaries and future generations.
He claimed that "if historians do not record them, these events will be forgotten for a long time" and that "it is glorious to record these events, because they can be helpful to their contemporaries and can be used as a reference for future generations."
Procobie's "History of War" is full of admiration and admiration for Belisarius, and he spares no effort to portray Belisarius as a heroic figure and portray his various virtues.
The first is loyalty. In Procobie's writing, Belisarius's loyalty to the emperor was absolute.
The second is bravery. Procobi sings the praises of Belisarius for his bravery many times in the book, and his figure appears on the front lines of battle many times.
Not only that, but virtues such as wit, humility, temperance, and kindness were often seen in Belisarius.
Procobi was unabashedly praising Belisarius, saying that he had "earned a reputation that no one had ever experienced before, nor in this era."
2. Belisarius in The Secret History
Procobius revealed a large number of behind-the-scenes truths about the events recorded in the Chronicles of the War and Belisarius' private life in The Secret History.
It is hard to believe that the image of Belisarius has changed dramatically in this work: he is no longer a heroic general, but a stupid and cowardly husband.
Procobi begins with a denunciation of Belisarius at the beginning of The Secret History, saying that his calmness and sanity seem to be limited to the battlefield, and when confronted by his wife Antonina, he has become a complete fool.
Procobi recounts in detail how Belisarius was deceived by his unfaithful wife, Antonina, into having an affair with his adopted son, Theodosius, and murdering his loyal lieutenant Constantine on Belisarius' side after the affair was revealed.
What is even more incredible is that Procobi claims that the real reason why Belisarius led the entire Roman army to retreat during the Battle of the Persian War at the Fortress of Hiszoranon was because of the arrival of Antonina.
Procobi also thoroughly exposed the corruption of Belisarius and his family.
In the History of War, Procobi claims that after the victory of the Vandals, Belisarius generously surrendered to the emperor the property of King Gelimore of the Vandals and many of the Vandals, and distributed many of them to the people of the capital.
However, in the Secret History, he points out that the wealth that Belisarius handed over was only a very small part of the booty he had captured, and that "the little was hardly worthy of the emperor's acceptance."
This corruption was not limited to him, and the entire family of Belisarius seemed to be involved in the embezzlement of the booty.
Finally, Procobi also slammed Belissa for his mistakes in the war.
He accused Belisarius of retreating voluntarily in the Persian War, which he was notorious as a traitor and coward, and of the Gothic Wars for not having the desired results and for lacking strategic vision in the battle.
He concluded that Belisarius had been a complete defeat in the Gothic War, and when he left the battlefield, he had given up almost all the strongholds of control, essentially negating his exploits in the Gothic field.
Belisarius in Agaseas's Histories
Agasias's "History" is in the same vein as Procobi in terms of writing and narrative.
Although Agasias's account of Belisarius is limited to the battle against the Kutlichus, he gives a complete account of the battle at considerable length.
The fifth volume of the Histories consists of 25 chapters, of which six are devoted to this event, so that his image of Belisarius is very vivid. First of all, Belisar rose to the occasion of the greatest danger for his people and country, despite his advanced age, to stand up against the enemy.
The battle described in the text took place around the time of the Common Era, and Belisarius was already in the twilight of his life as a general, nearly sixty years old.
But in the author's pen, his heroism has not diminished in the slightest. Secondly, he showed his usual wisdom and bravery in battle, and despite his advanced age, Belisarius' military prowess did not seem to have been affected.
When the Byzantine soldiers were carried away and determined to win, Hyperesarius did not forget his usual calm style, and made a very pertinent long speech, calling on the soldiers to remain calm.
On the night of the decisive battle, he lit a large number of signal lights to confuse the enemy, so that the enemy was stunned by the huge flames, thinking that the Roman army was outnumbered, and then took advantage of its unpreparedness to defeat the enemy in one fell swoop.
However, after Belisarius's success, he was once again embroiled in political struggle. As soon as his class returned to the court, he was at the center of rumors.
Although the populace of Constantinople saw him as the savior of the nation upon news of the victory, it was a taboo for Belisarius' political enemies and emperor.
Rumors abound in the capital, and many said that Belisarius was "plotting to gain a higher position". To this, Anastasiaus declared that it was the suffering of Belisarius, the applause of noble souls deprived of their righteousness.
Belisarius in the Pseudo-Sachariah's Chronicle of Syria
In his works, the pseudo-Zacharias recorded a large number of important events in the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire in the time of Justinian, and there are also rich records of Belisarius's performance in the Persian wars.
His work provides a different perspective for future generations to look at Belisarius. In general, in the Chronicle of Syria, the author portrays him as an opportunist, who is not as invincible as they say.
He suffered repeated defeats in Persia, and his subsequent victories in North Africa were described by the author more as luck than strength. The author also rarely uses an overly praising tone for Belisarius's achievements.
In the first place, Belisarius on the Persian battlefield was not the victorious general that other historians portray.
The Syrian Chronicle records two battles overlooked by Procopius and most other Byzantine historians, most likely the first battles of Belisar in the eastern part of the empire, but both ended in failure.
Secondly, the glory of Belisarius had a lot to do with the speculative Emperor Flame.
The author once commented on the performance of Belisarius and other Roman generals in the Persian wars, arguing that "they did not deserve such honor in the war against the Persians, and their bravery and resourcefulness did not deserve the rank conferred upon them."
He also mentioned Belisarius in his commentary, arguing that he not only failed in the battle, but also made every possible quibble in front of the emperor, claiming that it was not due to personal reasons, but that his generals and soldiers lacked military discipline, did not obey orders, and were overly impatient, which caused serious consequences.
In the Vandal War, it was not his own ability that led Belisarius to success, but his luck.
Pseudo-Zachariah uses the phrase "God's will" as the reason for Belisarius' successful voyage to Thanaki,
And he pointed out that when Belisarius marched with his army to the vicinity of the city of Ethergate, the owner of the land was not there at all, but engaged in a fierce battle with the Moors near the desert.
Only a small part of the defending force was defeated, and the city surrendered. The success of this speculation brought him great honor.
In explaining why the title of commander of the Gothic War fell to Belisarius, the Pseudo-Zachariah account is even clearer: Justinian did not choose Belisarius because he was a good fighter, nor for some other noble reason,
Simply because Belisarius did not harm the local people in the Vandal War, nor did he depopulate the population by killing innocent people.
In addition, the emperor was satisfied with the amount of tribute and taxes that Belisarius gave him, and the more important reason was that Belisarius obeyed the emperor's orders. That's why Justinian appointed him to lead the army to Rome.
Accounts of other historical sources
Historical sources such as the Easter Chronicle, Malalas' Chronicle, and Marcelinus' Chronicle are mostly straightforward in their records, with little or no evaluation of Belisarius, so it is difficult to find the author's attitude towards Belisarius in these historical materials.
However, judging from the content recorded by historians, there are different aspects of concern. In Marselinus's Chronicle, the author's tone clearly indicates that he supported the military campaigns of Justinian and Belisarius.
The author of the Easter Chronicle is clearly not in high esteem of the war and the many Byzantine generals.
He records that when Persia and Byzantium clashed over the Lazika issue, the emperor sent three generals, including Belisarius, into battle, but the outcome of the battle was not satisfactory.
Due to the mutual jealousy and betrayal between these generals, the warplanes were delayed and a large number of Roman soldiers died. When they returned to the capital, they shirked each other's responsibilities before the emperor, and Justinian was furious and replaced them all.
In Malalas's Chronicle, the author accounts of the Battle of Lazika in which many of the generals who fought together were killed and captured, but Belisarius fled alone.
Later, when Belisarius was appointed General of the East and led a large army to guard the border, Malaras frequently mentioned another overseer, Hemodeenis.
This man was a former general who played an important role in the subsequent wars in the East, and the author accounts more and more about his actions than Belisarius.
Not only that, but the Battle of Dara, the first largest victory since Belisarius' debut, recorded in Procobi's "History of War", only mentions the name of the general Sunikas in Malalas's pen, and he does not mention anything about Belisarius's actions during the war.
summary
Problems in the Historical SourcesThe numerous historical records provide different evidence and perspectives for the study of Belisarius, but then there is the problem of the historical materials themselves.
The biggest problem with the historical records of the past is the discrepancies between the different historical sources, so this also adds many difficulties to the study of Belisarius through the text.
bibliography
[1] Chen Xulu, "On the Evaluation of Historical Figures", New Knowledge Publishing House, 1955.
[2] 陈志强: 《巴尔干ancient history》, 中华书局, 2007 edition.
[3] Chen Zhiqiang, History of the Byzantine Empire, The Commercial Press, 2003.
[4] 陈志强: "Studies on the Study of Fortune Telling," People's Publishing House, 2001 edition.
[5] Chen Zhiqiang, "Unique Byzantine Civilization", China Youth Publishing House, 1999.
Disclaimer:
The process and pictures described in the article are all from the Internet, and this article aims to advocate positive social energy and no vulgar and other bad guidance. If it involves copyright or character infringement issues, please contact us in time, and we will delete the content as soon as possible!