Talk:Justinian I

Dan Jones quote "the historian"
Removed overweening, unsubstantiated, made up lines by the fake historian, the journalist hack, Dan Jones. Journalists are not historians. There is no such description of Justinian that I could find. Also removed the uncited "Often described as the last "true" roman" phrase, also made up. It's still completely uncited.

"To them, he was a titan whose terrible magnificence shone far beyond the confines of his own times – so fiercely that many centuries later Dante Alighieri placed him in Paradise as the archetypical Roman: peerless lawgiver and a radiant, supremely gifted Caesar, who appeared in the afterlife surrounded by a light as bright and blinding as the sun."

Where is this description? I checked Dante's Inferno and it mostly has Justinian describing history or something like that, in a matter of fact way. The only "radiant" word I've seen is attributed to Beatrice, which Dan jones seems to have plucked and applied to Justinian arbitrarily and contrary to the source. This is a modern British hack journalist gushing about Justinian. That's all it was before my edit. He also says Often described as the "last true roman". Oh really? By whom? Where is the citation or list of who calls him that? Chanotp (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot. Dan jones the fake gushing tabloid journalist, takes the word of what he believes Dante Alighieri thinks about Justinian (and see above on that), a man who lived 8 centuries later (800 years) over the word of Procopius who was a peer from Justinian's time and direct observer of Justinian's crimes against the people and even legal advisor Belisarius to Justinians chief commander. It's very hackish tabloid behavior from Dan jones.Chanotp (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

People seem to have chosen to put Dan jones the modern British hacks text in over Procopius own words (translated):

"For he was at once villainous and amenable; as people say colloquially, a moron. He was never truthful with anyone, but always guileful in what he said and did, yet easily hoodwinked by any who wanted to deceive him. His nature was an unnatural mixture of folly and wickedness. What in olden times a peripatetic philosopher said was also true of him, that opposite qualities combine in a man as in the mixing of colors. I will try to portray him, however, insofar as I can fathom his complexity.

This Emperor, then, was deceitful, devious, false, hypocritical, two-faced, cruel, skilled in dissembling his thought, never moved to tears by either joy or pain, though he could summon them artfully at will when the occasion demanded, a liar always, not only offhand, but in writing, and when he swore sacred oaths to his subjects in their very hearing. Then he would immediately break his agreements and pledges, like the vilest of slaves, whom indeed only the fear of torture drives to confess their perjury. A faithless friend, he was a treacherous enemy, insane for murder and plunder, quarrelsome and revolutionary, easily led to anything, but never willing to listen to good counsel, quick to plan mischief and carry it out, but finding even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears." -ProcopiusChanotp (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Formatting tools don't deal with tabs in bullet lists, so it looks badly formatted. (Not my fault it's the incompetent people at wikipedia who didn't fix such a basic problem for over a decade now.Chanotp (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)