Belisarius: The Last Roman General (6 page)

For aristocratic families raised in the classical tradition of Greek, Latin and rhetoric, to have an ‘illiterate peasant’ from an unknown village in Thrace as emperor was likely to be particularly galling. They would have been unable to show their classical education by alluding to events from Homer or Virgil in his presence, since he would clearly not have understood the reference, nor comprehended and acknowledged their skills.

Hardly less appalling would be the expected round of promotions from within the emperor’s intimate circle. These would likely come from those closest to him, who would undoubtedly be of similar, rough, peasant stock. Furthermore, it is likely that they would oust men who had spent a fortune and lost years of their lives to reach their soon-to-be-lost lofty positions. The background intrigues and political schemes of those who had lost out would have likely taken on a sharper, more personal edge, even amounting to vendetta.

Yet it is clear that Justinian’s uncle, Justin, recognised that to many he remained unacceptable. It is interesting to note that he ensured that Justinian obtained a classical education at Constantinople so that Justinian would not face, either openly or in secret, the derision or disdain that was likely to be aimed at Justin. Yet the tutoring Justinian received could not eradicate the lowly nature of his birth or stop the aristocracy disliking being subservient to him. After all, although he was the nephew of an emperor, he would probably still be seen as a lowborn peasant, and it is unlikely that he could eradicate all trace of his Thracian accent when speaking Greek or Latin.

Upon being made emperor, Justinian did not act in a manner to endear him to the nobility. As we have seen, their main source of prestige and power was employment in the civil service, and Justin had already made many changes. In order to decrease the amount of revenues being spent on administration, Justinian ordered a cut-back in the civil service. Many lost their jobs and their status, and in return acquired a sense of injustice and betrayal.

The very size of the civil service and the large part it played in the lives of the nobility and upwardly mobile did mean that change was always resisted. Such an attitude was probably one of the causes of Byzantine stagnation; in particular, the Byzantines believed that the emperor reflected the glory of God and his employees reflected the role of the angels. Therefore, Byzantine methods of operation were a reflection of Divine practice and were thus clearly perfect and needed no alterations. As a result, any change, whatever the motive, was not only unnecessary but verging on blasphemous. Furthermore, the trend for some time had been towards Greek replacing Latin as the language of the law. This was seen by many as a betrayal of their Roman heritage, and by some at least as a break with tradition bordering on the sacrilegious: in an age of superstition, such a rupture with their ancestral past was a bad omen.

It is when looking at the prejudice inherent in the noble classes that we need to take note of our sources. It is probable that most of the invective aimed at Justinian, his wife Theodora and Belisarius’ wife Antonina in the
Anekdota
of Procopius was solely due to their being seen as of too common a stock for high positions at court. It should not be forgotten that Procopius had early acquired a traditional education in the Greek classics and law, implying that his family was relatively wealthy. Furthermore, the likelihood of his being of at least middle rank is reinforced by his appointment to such a high position as
secretary to the new
magister militum per Orientem,
Belisarius, at a relatively young age. Procopius’ family may have had wealth, a relatively distinguished ancestry and long-standing connections at court; Justinian, Theodora and Antonina did not. This was likely to be of some importance later in Belisarius’ career.

It is also conceivable that Procopius was further dismayed by the rivalries, jealousies and intrigues that took place at the court. Normally, if an emperor was a member of one of the older, noble families, individuals would know roughly what to expect and where they stood in the pecking order. With Justin and Justinian being outsiders, it is likely that the uncertainty of the times resulted in a more frenzied court life than was the norm. An example of this took place in 541, when the Empress Theodora and Antonina conspired against John of Cappadocia, the praetorian prefect and a personal enemy of Theodora. It was an open secret that John desired to become emperor. Antonina arranged to meet him and induced him to reveal how he would achieve his objective. This was related to Theodora and John lost his job, his wealth and his personal property, but was exiled as a monk rather than being executed, possibly for fear of rousing residual aristocratic support against the emperor.

On the whole, Procopius appears to have been sickened by the political rivalries, jealousies and intrigues present in the court during the reign of Justinian, to the point where he wrote the
Anekdota
as a rebuke to all of the people involved. It is possible that he began his career with an idealistic view of the emperor and his court, and when this was at odds with reality he felt no option but to voice his disgust.

Finally, there was Justinian’s relationship with Theodora. Justinian himself realised that neither he nor Theodora fit well into the imperial model. It is possible that, alongside his obvious attraction to the eminently-unsuitable courtesan Theodora, lay the tempting possibility of further irritating the arrogant nobles of the court. For Theodora had a chequered background. Her father was apparently a man who was a bear keeper at the Hippodrome and her mother was allegedly an acrobat. This was not a woman who could or would expect to be welcome in polite society.

Yet there was a major aspect of Theodora’s past that would endear her to Justinian. They were both attached to the Blues. Blue and Green were originally the colours associated with the two principal teams of chariot racers at the Hippodrome. By the time of Justinian, the two factions had left simple racing behind and had assumed semi-political status. The Blues tended to be the party of landowners and the Graeco-Roman aristocracy; the Greens were affiliated with trade, industry and the civil service. Naturally, wishing to reform the civil service, Justinian tended to sympathise with the Blues.

The antagonism between the two parties could easily expand into full-scale riots, yet, far from attempting to diminish their influence, Justinian and Theodora seem to have allowed their favouritism for the Blues to enable the Blues to gain the upper hand. This was to have far-reaching consequences for Justinian’s reign, especially during the Nika riots, as we shall.

The importance of the tensions and conflicts both at court and in the capital city will become clearer when we look at the life of Belisarius in detail. All that needs to be remembered at this stage is that politics and society in the imperial city were fraught with tensions and violence, factors that were to have an enormous impact upon the career of Belisarius himself.

Belisarius

It is unfortunate in the extreme that the rise to power of Justin and Justinian should be concurrent with the birth and early career of Belisarius. The existing sources for this period concentrate upon the ascent of Justin and the activities of Justinian as the power behind the throne and then as emperor himself. The fact that the sources are unclear concerning much of the early lives of the emperors Justin and Justinian gives an indication of their lack of coverage for the lesser personality of Belisarius.

Belisarius appears to have been born in the town of Germana – now Saparevska Banya in western Bulgaria – sometime around the start of the sixth century (probably between 500 and 505). Although nothing is known concerning his family or his upbringing, it is conspicuous that nowhere in the
Anekdota
does Procopius mention his ancestry. Although this may be due to a lingering regard for the general, given the nature of
the Anekdota
it would seem natural that, if he was as lowborn as Justinian, Theodora and Antonina, the fact would have been mentioned, if only as a comparison to the objects of Procopius’ hatred.

The theory that Belisarius was of a relatively high status gains further credence when it is linked to the story of John the Cappadocian related above. John clearly expected Belisarius’ wife to support John’s attempt to gain the throne, yet there is no evidence to suggest that Belisarius conspired against Justinian. As a consequence, John’s trust is only understood if he expected the support of a fellow noble against the Thracian upstart, especially considering the friendship of Antonina and Theodora.

The supposition that Belisarius was relatively noble may also be one of the causes for the relative lack of criticism he received in the
Anekdota
of Procopius. A possible reason for Procopius’ tirade against Belisarius may be that Procopius expected Belisarius to move on from the conquest of Africa and Italy to the conquest of the empire. That he did not may have been a deep source of disappointment to Procopius, not simply because the lowborn Justinian remained in control, but also because of the benefits he himself could
have expected from his former superior had he become the new emperor. Yet the denunciation does not have the same venom as that against Theodora and Justinian.

Therefore, it seems natural to deduce that Belisarius was not a penniless peasant but a member of the higher classes in his town of birth, possibly a
decurion
or
curiale
(town councillors) or higher. Such prominence would also help to explain his lofty position in the army at a very early age.

The whole edifice of Byzantine politics would undoubtedly have affected the young Belisarius. As we shall see, it was certainly to affect him after his marriage, when it is likely to have made him suspicious of the motives of others. This may have been especially the case in the military aspects of Byzantine diplomacy, since he appears to have been relatively unconcerned with civil politics.

On the other hand, we should not forget that the cities of the empire strove to reflect the conditions of Constantinople. The ‘Mother of Cities’ was a role model for all and it is likely that the manner of rank and promotion were the same in Belisarius’ home town as the capital city, if on a much smaller scale. Therefore he is likely to have developed political skills growing up, especially if his family were of some importance in Germana, which would have stood him in good stead in his early career.

Furthermore, we should remember that both Justinian and Belisarius were from Thrace. The majority of the inhabitants of the east spoke Greek, but because of its western orientation the Thracians generally spoke Latin as their second language (Thracian being their first). Justinian and Belisarius therefore shared several common bonds: a language, a place of origin, but mainly their relative youth. It is quite likely that Belisarius was a far more pleasing companion for Justinian than any of the Greek-speaking, older military men that probably surrounded him.

There is one other factor to take into account. In about 522 Justinian met Theodora. As we have already seen, she was not an ideal match for such an important political figure, and it is possible that Belisarius was influential in maintaining their relationship, simply by giving advice to Justinian on how to manage the episode. It is likely that Belisarius would have a much greater knowledge of these matters and be able to help with sound political advice if he was originally of a higher social class than Justinian and knew the way that the aristocratic mind worked.

It is regrettable that so much about the future general must remain conjecture. Yet, given the nature of the surviving sources and the fact that in many instances the early lives of important figures were seen as irrelevant by contemporary writers, this is all we have until shortly before Justinian was declared emperor in 527. For Belisarius is first mentioned as an officer in Justinian’s bodyguard before Justinian became emperor. He probably joined
the army at about 18 years old, though an age as low as 16 is possible. We do not know at what level he joined the army, but if he joined as an ordinary soldier he was promoted exceedingly quickly. Given that the earliest he is likely to have been born is 500, this implies that he took only around ten years to rise through the ranks and become an officer in the guard of the
magister utriusque militiae.
By the time a Roman soldier was appointed general he would normally expect to be at least 35 years old.

The reason for this meteoric rise is unknown. He either utilised excellent family connections, possessed an outstanding personal physique and manner, or he was an outstanding military talent, or took advantage of a combination of the three. There is no claim in Procopius that Belisarius was outstanding physically – although he is given a certain military bearing – and he does not stand out as particularly powerful in the mosaic in the church of San Vitale (Plate 1). He may have been exceedingly well connected, with powerful patronage to promote his career, yet this is nowhere mentioned and a middle-class upbringing seems eminently more likely. Yet, as we will see later, he had one further advantage: his personality. Throughout his career he appears to have behaved in a sensible and trustworthy fashion. Although he may have been outstanding militarily from an early age, it is more likely that his loyalty and trustworthiness were what attracted the attention of his fellow countryman, the future Emperor Justinian.

The fact that upon Justinian becoming emperor Belisarius was appointed to a senior post and placed in command of troops in a war with Persia confirms that he was a close personal friend of the emperor, that his military talents were outstanding and that he had an exceptional personality.