Talk:Maurice (emperor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Should this article be renamed?

I'm guessing this article was named "Maurice I" because Maurice was already used for the Forster novel. However, it seems kind of strange to use the ordinal as there was no Maurice II. Would it be more in keeping with Wikipedia style to use Maurice (emperor) as the title, in keeping with Alexander III (emperor), for instance? --Jfruh 15:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Adam Bishop 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Jfruh 19:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Only a remark: User:84.130.241.119 has translated parts of the german article de:Maurikios and has added them here.

Please correct any spelling mistakes or wrong sentence structures. 84.130.241.119 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am User:84.130.241.119 Hungerhahn 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Inadequacies

This article reflects the Constantinople-centered imperial historical tradition and thus almost completely misses the disastrous nature of Maurice's reign, although it does allude to this a little in the last paragraph. By Maurice's day, the Roman Empire was falling apart at the seams, so his failure was hardly limited to too much faith in his own judgement. The Egyptian Copts and Syrian Jacobites, sometimes referred to as "Monophysites," were completely fed up with the empire and not prepared to tolerate its domination of their lands any longer by Maurice's day. This led Maurice to using violent suppression to try to control the Monophysites, beginning with his relative Domitian of Melitene's persecution of the Jacobites in the extreme north of Syria in 598. Jacobite refugees fled to Egypt, where they were cared for by the Copts. From 599 to 601 the serious revolt of Aykelah broke out in the Egyptian Delta, leading to the burning of Alexandria and even rebel raids on Cyprus. Egyptian grain exports to Constantinople were cut off, causing a famine in the capital. This was the immediate background of the fall of Maurice. The article currently states, "In religious matters, he was very tolerant towards Monophysitism, although he was a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon." This is nearly the opposite of the truth. Actually, he was the least tolerant emperor toward the Copts and Jacobites since the earlier attempts to suppress them between 451 and 482. His failure to placate the Copts and Jacobites led directly to the collapse of the most of the Roman Empire under Phocas and Heraclius. The revolution in which he was killed was the first successful and lasting overthrow of an emperor in Constantinople since its founding and thus was the decisive end of the Constantinian dispensation in the Roman Empire.

Bibliography:

W. H. C. Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 1972.

Jacques Jarry. Hérésies et factions dans l’empire byzantin du IVe au VIIe siècle. Le Caire, Impr. de L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1968.

Severus of Ashmunayn. History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. In Patrologia Orientalis, Vols. 1 and 5. Edited and translated by B. Evetts.

71.242.230.2 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Davis

Since you have the sources and seem to know the subject, please add the information to the article. --Jfruh (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

@ 71.242.230.2 Most peculiar opinion. If the Empire did actually fall apart, why did Heraclius manage to mend the Byzantine Empire together and defeat the Persians. Why was Phocas known to be a fanatical oppressor of the "Monophysites" if nothing was said about Maurice in this matter. If Maurice has actually been the most harsch oppressor, most literature would depict him as such. I have not read anything about it. Hungerhahn 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

84.130.241.119 and Hungerhahn are identical. Hungerhahn 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)