Is there anything great about theodora?
- Thread starter Lonkut
- Start date
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
Not true, theodora was no harlot. She was merely in the circus and had an act with this dancing bear (no, I'm dead serious, true story). But I do think that Justinian would have been a better choice for a leaderhead to the Byzantines, what with the creation of one single legal code, the construction of Hagia Sofia and the conquest of western rome (or what was left of it).
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Basically she ruled from behind the throne and was responsible for most of Justinian's actions, IIRC.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
North_King said:
that's can be debated. I think she gave him a lot of moral support, and direction sometimes, but she was not the mastermind behind his most ambitious projects.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
Yes, but as the reconquest of the west was ultimately a failure, I don't count the dismissal of Justinian's greatest general such a big loss (no matter how much Belisarius could have conquered, it would been lost anyways as soon as the arabs attacked the provinces of real importance of the roman empire (which has always been Egypt and Syria).
Theodora was a Monophysite while Justinian was Chalcedonian (at least until the end of his life, when he converted to the extreme form of Monophysitism known as Aphthartodocetism). She secretly helped the Monophysites behind Justinian's back, and gave them the support they needed to break with the Orthodox and set up their own independent church structure. Thus she sponsored the activities of Jacob Baradaeus, the great hero of the Jacobean Church (which takes its name from him). She was also reponsible for sending a Monophysite mission to Nubia, in the hope of converting it to Monophysite Christianity. When Justinian heard about this he had little choice but to send a rival, orthodox mission to the same place - but Theodora's man got there first, convinced the Nubians that he had been given authority by the emperor over the other lot, and duly converted everyone to the religion that Theodora wanted!
In other words, Theodora was extremely influential in Middle Eastern and North African religious history.
In other words, Theodora was extremely influential in Middle Eastern and North African religious history.
mitsho
Deity
Well, she made the history author of her time (Prokop) very angry, and thus he defamed her afterwarts in all sorts of manner. 
That's a clear sign that she was important: Authors only treat important persons... 
.
And of course, for more serious answers I think, the other posters have said enough.
mfG mitsho
That's a clear sign that she was important: Authors only treat important persons... .And of course, for more serious answers I think, the other posters have said enough.
mfG mitsho
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Kafka2 said:
Gosh, what caused you to learn the word pudenda? For me it is a website devoted to interesting words beginning with "P" when I was trying to learn clever insults my mentor was afflicting me with
The sort of street-entertainment I want to see more of in Manchester
Kublai-Khan
Prince
Wouldnt Saint Irene the empress be a better candidate for the game than Theodora?, she was also very important, she had an even more direct influence on religion history than Theodora, by condemning Iconoclasm, which was tearing apart the empire, and ...she was an empress who ruled in her own right ,she was on the coins.
Not just the hooker wife of the emperor.
Not just the hooker wife of the emperor.
mitsho
Deity
But they weren't emperor/empress. That's the point.
History creates heros. It does not matter wether these heros have really acheived something, or are just good 'ego-propagandists'. (People that know how to place themselve in a good light wether or not this is true).
Do you want another example than theodora?
What about Ramses II.? The one that fighted that hard at Kadesh? Don't you think. He was a terrible general that almost (he just had luck) destroyed his own army. but, well he was a builder, and then, back at home, he let extremely many temples be built in which he was celebrated as the winner of kadesh, etc. The result was that at home in egypt he was a hero, and later in 19th century Europe too: They only knew the Egypt sources.
Back to topic now
mfG mitsho
History creates heros. It does not matter wether these heros have really acheived something, or are just good 'ego-propagandists'. (People that know how to place themselve in a good light wether or not this is true).
Do you want another example than theodora?
What about Ramses II.? The one that fighted that hard at Kadesh? Don't you think. He was a terrible general that almost (he just had luck) destroyed his own army. but, well he was a builder, and then, back at home, he let extremely many temples be built in which he was celebrated as the winner of kadesh, etc. The result was that at home in egypt he was a hero, and later in 19th century Europe too: They only knew the Egypt sources.
Back to topic now
mfG mitsho
HolyEmperor
Now THIS is a Dromon!
Theodora was very defamed by Procopius and the rest of the Byzantine aristocracy because she was from the lower cast of the society, hence they called her a prostitute, when she actually was a circus worker.
She almost made the whole of Christianity to convert to monophysitisme - if it wasn't for the intervention of the pope himself. Besides she had a great deal of influence over Justinian.
However, I agree that the Byzantine leader should not be her. She never actually were the powerful person in the throne. Irene was, and in her laws she signed as an EmperOR- basileu, in the masculine, and not basilissa, in the feminin. But she governed the Empire in a low point, it wouldn't be logical to put her.
And Justinian shouldn't be the leader because, as most historians says he was the last great ROMAN emperor. ROMAN not BYZANTINE. Only after Heraclius the caracteristics of a byzantine civilization would be stronger. Therefore, I guess the leader should be Heraclius, who saved the empire from destruction, or Basil II, who made the empire rise to a level of recognition and prestige unparelleled since Justinian.
She almost made the whole of Christianity to convert to monophysitisme - if it wasn't for the intervention of the pope himself. Besides she had a great deal of influence over Justinian.
However, I agree that the Byzantine leader should not be her. She never actually were the powerful person in the throne. Irene was, and in her laws she signed as an EmperOR- basileu, in the masculine, and not basilissa, in the feminin. But she governed the Empire in a low point, it wouldn't be logical to put her.
And Justinian shouldn't be the leader because, as most historians says he was the last great ROMAN emperor. ROMAN not BYZANTINE. Only after Heraclius the caracteristics of a byzantine civilization would be stronger. Therefore, I guess the leader should be Heraclius, who saved the empire from destruction, or Basil II, who made the empire rise to a level of recognition and prestige unparelleled since Justinian.
Similar threads
