“The Great Emperor”: A Motif in

Procopius of Caesarea’s Wars

Charles F. Pazdernik

A FTER HIS DECISIVE VICTORIES over the Vandals and

occupation of Carthage in 533 CE, Belisarius moved
quickly to consolidate his position by winning the sur-
render of the cities of Libya and the Mediterranean islands.
Imperial forces encountered serious resistance only at Lily-
baeum in Ostrogothic Sicily, where Belisarius alleged that
Theoderic had ceded the fortress to the Vandals, notwith-
standing the fact that it was presently occupied by a Gothic
garrison.1 As Procopius presents the matter, Belisarius wrote a
letter to the Gothic commanders there, upbraiding them for
depriving him of property belonging, as he put it, to slaves
(douloi) of the emperor—among whom he included, notably,
Gelimer, the defeated Vandal king. Belisarius’ demand is re-
markable not simply for its menacing tone—a foreshadowing of
Justinian’s designs against Gothic Sicily and Italy—but also for
the manner in which it adopts an avowedly despotic voice
(Wars 4.5.12–13, 16–17, transl. Dewing/Kaldellis):
Λιλύβαιον τὸ Βανδίλων φρούριον τῶν βασιλέως δούλων ἀπο-
στερεῖτε ἡµᾶς, οὐ δίκαια ποιοῦντες οὐδὲ ὑµῖν αὐτοῖς ξύµφορα,
καὶ ἄρχοντι τῷ ὑµετέρῳ οὔτι ἑκόντι καὶ µακρὰν ἀπολελειµµένῳ

1 Wars 4.5.1–11; see also 3.8.11–13, 5.3.15–28. On the respective claims

of Vandals and Ostrogoths upon Sicily see Frank M. Clover, “A Game of
Bluff: The Fate of Sicily after A.D. 476,” Historia 48 (1999) 235–244, esp.
242–243; also R. J. A. Wilson, Sicily under the Roman Empire: The Archaeology of
a Roman Province (Warminster 1990) 336–337; Jonathan Conant, Staying
Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439–700 (Cam-
bridge 2012) 38–39.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
2017 Charles F. Pazdernik
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 215

τῶν πρασσοµένων ἐκπολεµῶσαι βούλεσθε βασιλέα τὸν µέγαν,

οὗ τὴν εὔνοιαν πόνῳ πολλῷ κτησάµενος ἔχει. καίτοι πῶς οὐκ ἂν
ἄπο τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τρόπου ποιεῖν δόξαιτε, εἰ Γελίµερα µὲν
ἔναγχος ἔχειν ξυνεχωρεῖτε τὸ φρούριον, βασιλέα δὲ τὸν τοῦ
Γελίµερος κύριον ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὰ τοῦ δούλου κτήµατα ἔγνωτε;
µὴ ὑµεῖς γε, ὦ βέλτιστοι … ὑµεῖς οὖν µήτε δράσητε ἡµᾶς µηδὲν
περαιτέρω κακὸν µήτε αὐτοὶ πάθητε, µήτε πολέµιον κατερ-
γάσησθε τῷ Γότθων γένει βασιλέα τὸν µέγαν, ὃν ὑµῖν ἵλεων
εἶναι ἐν εὐχῇ ἐστιν. εὖ γὰρ ἴστε ὡς τοῦδε µεταποιουµένοις ὑµῖν
τοῦ φρουρίου ὁ πόλεµος ἐν ποσὶν ἔσται οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Λιλυβαίου
µόνον, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων, ὧν οὐδὲν προσῆκον ὑµῖν εἶτα
ἀντέχεσθε.
You are depriving us of Lilybaeum, a fortress of the Vandals, the
slaves of the emperor, and are not acting justly nor in a way to
benefit yourselves. You wish to bring upon your ruler, against
his will and far as he is from the scene of these actions, the
hostility of the great emperor [b],2 whose goodwill he has won with
great effort. Yet how could you not seem to be acting contrary
to established practice, if you recently allowed Gelimer to hold
the fortress but have decided to withhold from the emperor,
Gelimer’s master, the possessions of the slave? You, at least,
good men, should not act thus … See to it, then, that you
neither do us further harm nor suffer harm yourselves, nor make
the great emperor [b] an enemy to the Gothic nation, when it is
your prayer that he be propitious toward you. For be well
assured that, if you lay claim to this fortress, war will be upon
you immediately, not for Lilybaeum alone but for all possessions
you claim as yours, although not one of them belongs to you.
The Goths, on the instructions of Amalasuntha, who at the
time was ruling as regent during the minority of her son
Athalaric,3 replied with a conciliatory letter (4.5.19–24) and
2 References are to Table 1 below. This investigation is based upon a
TLG lemmatized proximity search of the corpora of Procopius, Agathias,
John Lydus, and Menander Protector for βασιλεύς within fifteen words of
µέγας.
3 See now Kate Cooper, “The Heroine and the Historian: Procopius of
Caesarea on the Troubled Reign of Queen Amalasuentha,” in J. J. Arnold
et al. (eds.), A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy (Leiden 2016) 296–315.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
216 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

defused the crisis for the moment by appealing directly to Jus-

tinian for arbitration. What is noteworthy about the exchange,
however, is Belisarius’ characterization of Justinian as “the
great emperor” (basileus ho megas), whose will the Goths would
thwart at their peril.
Beyond its purpose in establishing a pretext for further ag-
gression in the West, Belisarius’ letter to the Goths serves notice
about Justinian’s insuperable place in the order of things, com-
municated in a way that finds scant precedents in diplomatic or
other official documents in the sixth century.4 It was of course
routine to refer to the emperor as basileus, and Eusebius, for
example, was calling Constantine “the great emperor” already
in the fourth century,5 but Procopius employs the expression in
an altogether different register. The usages discussed here fall
outside the scope of Schreiner’s authoritative study of the ex-
pression megas basileus in imperial titulature,6 while Zuckerman,

4 Cf. Berthold Rubin, Prokopios von Kaisareia (Stuttgart 1954) 144 (= RE 23

418): “Der Briefwechsel dürfte unter Benutzung der Hauptargumente des
tatsächlich erfolgten stilisiert sein, wobei die Erfordernisse des historischen
Stils wichtiger als diplomatische Gepflogenheiten waren.” See also Averil
Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1985) 148–
149.
5 Vit.Const. 1.1.1, 1.56.1, 3.55.4, 4.68.2. The same expression refers to

God (3.43.4, 4.29.4) and, remarkably, to Diocletian (1.14.4). See H.-U.

Wiemer, “Libanius on Constantine,” CQ 44 (1994) 511–524, at 513 n.20,
who argues that Libanius’ panegyric on Constantius and Constans (Or.
59.29, 72) follows Eusebius in this and other respects. On the Near Eastern
and Hellenistic background see Rolf Strootman, “Hellenistic Imperialism
and the Idea of World Unity,” in Claudia Rapp and H. A. Drake (eds.), The
City in the Classical and Post-Classical World (Cambridge 2014) 38–61; on the
Hellenistic royal title basileus megas see John Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of
Western Asia Minor (Oxford 2000) 271–276; Federicomaria Muccioli, Gli epi-
teti ufficiali dei re ellenistici (Stuttgart 2013) 395–417.
6 Peter Schreiner, “Zur Bezeichnung ‘megas’ und ‘megas basileus’ in der
byzantinischen Kaisertitulatur,” Byzantina 3 (1971) 173–192; followed by
Gerhard Rösch, ΟΝΟΜΑ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaiser-
titel in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit (Vienna 1978) 38, 47. Evangelos K.
Chrysos, “The Title Βασιλεύς in Early Byzantine International Relations,”

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 217

on the basis of an examination of the documentary sources,

finds that Justinian is described as basileus ho megas only in the
Acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 536 (ACO III 108–109,
179): “The title ho megas basileus, however—or, to put it more
neutrally, this way to describe an emperor—enters in use under
the reign of Heraclius” (imp. 610–641).7 Not only have ap-
pearances of the expression in Procopius’ Wars escaped the
notice of these investigations, but studies of Procopius have
overlooked them as well. Yet they form a distinctive motif at
key moments in Procopius’ narrative when assertions of
Justinian’s imperial preeminence are especially blustering and
unsubtle.8 In contrast with later practice, then, when the
invocation of “the great emperor” becomes conventional,
manifestations of the practice in the Wars stand out as de-
partures from contemporary etiquette and customary modes of
written and oral communication.9
___
DOP 32 (1978) 29–75, at 55 with nn.167–168, considers Justinian’s letters to
Gelimer in Wars 3 (discussed below) only with reference to the terms with
which the emperor characterizes the Vandal monarchy.
7 Constantin Zuckerman, “On the Titles and Office of the Byzantine
Βασιλεύς,” Mélanges Cécile Morrisson, TravMém 16 (2010) 865–890, at 879
with n.42. See also Alexander Angelov, “In Search of God’s Only Emperor:
basileus in Byzantine and Modern Historiography,” Journal of Medieval History
40 (2014) 123–141, esp. 130–134.
8 This impression is reinforced by the sole appearance of the expression

in Agathias, Hist. 4.9.3, the speech of Rusticus justifying the assassination of

the Laz king Gubaz II/Gubazês: τὴν γὰρ ὑπὲρ βασιλέως τοῦ µεγίστου παρὰ
τοῖς ἔθνεσι νικήσασαν δόξαν, ὡς ἄρα δυνάµει τε κράτιστος καὶ πλήθει τρο-
παίων κεκοσµηµένος, διαλύειν τὸ µέρος ἐγίγνωσκε χρῆναι … “[Gubazês’]
intention was to undermine as best he could the widespread belief among
foreign peoples concerning the triumphant and invincible might of the great
emperor…” (transl. Frendo, modified). On the context see David Braund,
Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia (Oxford 1994),
esp. 308–309; George A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors
(Princeton 1983) 13–17.
9 But cf. John Lydus De mag. 3.30, the official citation celebrating the

author’s retirement from the staff of the Praetorian Prefecture in 552:

τούτοις τοίνυν ἅπασιν ἐνευδοκιµηκὼς Ἰωάννης ὁ λαµπρότατος, τοὺς ἐν τοῖς

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
218 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

In a comparable vein, but on a smaller scale, we can observe

how recurring patterns of distinctive expressions shape Pro-
copius’ narrative. The Persian shah Khusrau I, Procopius’
Chosroês, is three times addressed in Book 2 of the Wars as
“most mighty king” (ὦ κράτιστε βασιλεῦ), a formulation that
occurs only in the vocative.10 On the only other occasion on
which it appears, Belisarius employs the same expression in a
letter to Justinian, pleading for reinforcements, that is otherwise
notable for its hyperbolic and sardonic tone (7.12.3): ἀφίγµεθα
εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν, ὦ βασιλεῦ κράτιστε, ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ ἵππων καὶ
ὅπλων καὶ χρηµάτων χωρίς. ὧν οὐδ’ ἄν τις µὴ διαρκῶς ἔχων
πόλεµον, οἶµαι, διενεγκεῖν οὐ µή ποτε ἱκανὸς εἴη, “We have
arrived in Italy, most mighty emperor, without men, horses,
arms, or money, and no man, I think, would ever be able to
carry on a war without a plentiful supply of these things.” Ad-
dressing Justinian in a manner otherwise reserved for Chosroês,
Justinian’s nemesis and ironic mirror image,11 functions overtly
as a signal of Belisarius’ sarcasm and frustration and covertly as
a way of underscoring the resemblances Procopius constructs
between the two rulers.
Invocations of basileus ho megas likewise seem characteristic of
stereotyped language about barbarian rulers and their subjects

___
ἡµετέροις δικαστηρίοις βαθµούς τε καὶ πόνους διανύσας, ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ µεγά-
λου βασιλέως δραµεῖται ἴχνη καὶ µειζόνων ἐκεῖθεν ἀπολαύσει δωρεῶν,
“For this reason, John, holding the rank of clarissimus, has earned a good
reputation in all these things, and since he has reached the end both of his
duties and of the succession of posts in our courts of justice he will hasten in
the footsteps of our great emperor and will henceforward enjoy greater rewards”
(transl. Bandy/Kelly, in Christopher Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire
[Cambridge [Mass.] 2004] 18).
10 Wars 2.3.47 (a speech of the Armenians), 2.11.29 (a speech of Thomas,
bishop of Apamea), 2.26.33 (a speech of Stephanus, a physician, on behalf
of Edessa). See also 2.15.15, where ambassadors of the Lazi address
Chosroês as “greatest king” (ὦ µέγιστε βασιλεῦ).
11 See Anthony Kaldellis, Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philoso-
phy at the End of Antiquity (Philadelphia 2004) 119–128, with 257 n.4.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 219

in traditional Greco-Roman political discourse.12 Such mom-

ents establish an unbridgeable gulf between the figure of the
great emperor and various lesser beings, among whom are
included not only the Vandals and the Goths but also, inescap-
ably, Belisarius himself, functioning as a simple appendage of
the imperial will.
Procopius drives this point home in his treatment of Gelimer.
In the run-up to the Vandal War, after Gelimer deposed his
kinsman Hilderic, but well in advance of deliberations in Con-
stantinople over whether to mount an invasion (3.10.1–21), the
Wars presents Justinian making two successive diplomatic over-
tures, in the form of letters delivered by ambassadors, urging
Gelimer to preserve the appearance of legitimacy by restoring
Hilderic, who was elderly, in the expectation of replacing him
in the regular order of succession upon his death.
In the first of these letters (3.9.10–13), Justinian addresses
Gelimer in a remarkably confidential and candid spirit, chiding
him for deposing and imprisoning Hilderic, “an old man who
is [your] kinsman and the king of the Vandals” (γέροντά τε καὶ
ξυγγενῆ καὶ βασιλέα Βανδίλων), and warning him “do no
further wrong and do not exchange the name of king for the
appellation of tyrant” (µήτε οὖν ἐργάσῃ περαιτέρω κακὸν µήτε
τοῦ βασιλέως ὀνόµατος ἀνταλλάξῃ τὴν τοῦ τυράννου προση-
γορίαν, 3.9.10–11).13 Gelimer pointedly ignored this advice,

12A locus classicus is Aesch. Pers. 24–25, transl. Rosenbloom: ταγοὶ

Περσῶν, / βασιλῆς βασιλέως ὕποχοι µεγάλου, “chieftains of the Persians, /
kings subject to the Great King”; cf. Hdt. 1.188, etc. See also Zuckerman,
TravMém 16 (2010) 879: “The Byzantine title megas basileus has the same an-
tecedents as βασιλεύς tout court. It was common in Greek as the title of Per-
sian kings and as a Hellenistic royal title; it also has Biblical connotations.”
13 The letter continues (3.9.12): ἀλλὰ τοῦτον µὲν, ἄνδρα ὅσον οὔπω
τεθνηξόµενον, ἔα φέρεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν τῆς βασιλείας εἰκόνα, σὺ δὲ ἅπαν-
τα πρᾶττε ὅσα βασιλέα πράττειν εἰκός, “But as for this man [Hilderic],
whose death may be expected at any moment, allow him to bear in appear-
ance the form of royal power while you do all the things that it is proper for
a king to do.” Justinian himself, here writing as sole emperor, “having
already received the imperial power” (ἤδη τὴν βασιλείαν παραλαβών,

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
220 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

earning a sharper epistolary rebuke from Justinian (3.9.15–19).

Only then did Gelimer deign to offer a justification of his
position (3.9.20–23), in which he had the temerity to address
Justinian as one monarch to another: βασιλεὺς Γελίµερ
Ἰουστινιανῷ βασιλεῖ, “basileus Gelimer to basileus Justinian”
(3.9.20).
Procopius tells us that Justinian received Gelimer’s reply as a
provocation,14 probably not least because Gelimer had pre-
sumed to address him as an equal.15 Although basileus would
not become an official imperial title until the seventh century,
as we have seen, and Gelimer’s formulation was impolitic, to
say the least,16 it will be noticed that Justinian himself presented
Gelimer with his opening, by referring in his first letter to Hil-
deric as a basileus and urging Gelimer himself to aspire to be a
basileus and not a turannos. Justinian’s condescension in ac-
knowledging the legitimate ruler of the Vandals as a basileus,
___
3.9.10), reportedly played a similar role during the reign of Justin I (3.9.5;
cf. Arc. 6.19); see further Brian Croke, “Justinian under Justin: Recon-
figuring a Reign,” BZ 100 (2007) 13–56.
14 Wars 3.9.24: ταῦτα λαβὼν Ἰουστινιανὸς βασιλεὺς τὰ γράµµατα, ἔχων
καὶ πρότερον δι’ ὀργῆς Γελίµερα, ἔτι µᾶλλον ἐς τὴν τιµωρίαν ἐπῆρτο, “The
emperor Justinian was angry with Gelimer even before then, but when he
received this letter he was even more incited to punish him.”
15 Dewing/Kaldellis, following the usual practice of translating basileus as
“monarch,” “king,” or “emperor” as the context demands, render the
salutation: “King Gelimer to the emperor Justinian.” Gelimer is elsewhere
(3.24.3) addressed as basileus by his brother Tzazo. On one occasion in the
Vandal War, Procopius refers to Theoderic, apparently inadvertently, as “the
basileus of the Goths” (3.8.11; contrast 5.1.26); he also imputes the title to
rulers of various barbarian groups in the East. On the Vandal royal title see
further Herwig Wolfram, Intitulatio I Lateinische Königs- und Fürstentitel bis zum
Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts (Graz/Vienna/Cologne 1967) 81, 134–135, with An-
drew Gillett, “Was Ethnicity Politicized in the Earliest Medieval King-
doms?” in On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle
Ages (Turnhout 2002) 85–122, esp. 116–118.
16 Cf. Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century I.1 (Wash-
ington 1995) 115; Conant, Staying Roman 314; John Moorhead, The Roman
Empire Divided, 400–700 (London/New York 2013) 142 and n.6.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 221

and Gelimer’s presumption in assuming that title, accordingly,

posits an equivalency between the two that is striking and
pointedly at odds with Belisarius’ representation of Justinian’s
position with respect to both the Vandals and the Goths in the
dispute over Lilybaeum.17
Indeed, the Wars causes Belisarius, in his characterization of
Justinian as “the great emperor” who has overmastered Geli-
mer, to foreshadow Justinian’s own self-presentation in the
pageantry accompanying Belisarius’ return to Constantinople
in 534 with the captive Gelimer in tow. Procopius describes the
acclamations received by Belisarius on that occasion, as he
paraded on foot from his house to the hippodrome, as the
enactment of the first non-imperial Roman triumph celebrated
in some six hundred years.18 The occasion afforded Justinian,
however, the opportunity to stage a public spectacle of sub-
mission in which not only the conquered Vandal king (clad in
royal purple) but also his conqueror were obliged to prostrate
themselves before the emperor (4.9.12):
ἀφικόµενον δὲ αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸ βασιλέως βῆµα τὴν πορφυρίδα
περιελόντες, πρηνῆ πεσόντα προσκυνεῖν Ἰουστινιανὸν βασιλέα
κατηνάγκασαν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ Βελισάριος ἐποίει ἅτε ἱκέτης βασι-
λέως σὺν αὐτῷ γεγονώς.
When [Gelimer] came before the emperor’s box [in the hippo-
drome], they stripped off the purple garment and compelled
him to fall prone on the ground and do obeisance to the em-

17 Instructive in this connection is Strootman’s observation that “A Great

King … is basically someone who can legitimately assign royal status to
others”: in The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World 54.
18 Wars 4.9.1–3, cf. 4.9.15–16. See Sabine MacCormack, Art and Ceremony
in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1981) 73–76; Michael McCormick,
Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early
Medieval West (Cambridge 1986) 124–129; Mischa Meier, Das andere Zeitalter
Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n.Chr.
(Göttingen 2003) 150–165; Henning Börm, “Justinians Triumph und Beli-
sars Erniedrigung. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis zwischen Kaiser und
Militär im späten Römischen Reich,” Chiron 43 (2013) 63–91.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
222 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

peror Justinian. Belisarius also did this, as being a suppliant of

the emperor along with him.19
The reader of the Wars may detect in Justinian’s heavy-handed
symbolism not only his final rejoinder to Gelimer’s presump-
tion in making himself the emperor’s peer, but also the sub-
stantiation of Belisarius’ bellicose stance against the Goths over
Lilybaeum, so different from Justinian’s earlier efforts to align
Gelimer’s interests with his own. Belisarius bolsters his de-
mands by aggrandizing Justinian, making clear to the Goths in
the instant case the unambiguous character of imperial claims
over the Vandal kingdom, and to potential or actual opponents
more generally the unassailable authority and unlimited reach
of the Roman emperor in Constantinople.
Belisarius employs a similar strategy in the Persian War (Wars
1–2), when appealing to his fellow officers (xunarkhontes) to give
him their candid assessment of the situation on the eastern
frontier upon his return from Italy in the summer of 541
(2.16.7–9):
πόλεµος γὰρ εὐβουλίᾳ πάντων µάλιστα κατορθοῦσθαι φιλεῖ.
δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἐς βουλὴν καθισταµένους αἰδοῦς τε καὶ φόβου
παντάπασιν ἐλευθέραν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν γνώµην … εἴ τι τοίνυν ἢ
βασιλεῖ τῷ µεγάλῳ ἢ ἐµοὶ βεβουλεῦσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν παρόντων
δοκεῖ, µηδὲν ὑµᾶς τοῦτο εἰσίτω.
For wars tend to be won through careful planning more than by
anything else. And it is necessary that those who gather to de-
liberate should free their minds entirely of modesty and fear …
If, then, you think that either the great emperor [a] or I have
already decided regarding the present situation, put it out of
your mind.
The narrative has informed us that, in fact, Belisarius had

19 On this episode see further Charles Pazdernik, “Xenophon’s Hellenica

in Procopius’ Wars: Pharnabazus and Belisarius,” GRBS 46 (2006) 175–206,
esp. 200–202. The Gothic War meaningfully recapitulates this image when
the Goths offer to stage a public spectacle of prostration before Belisarius,
should he agree to be proclaimed basileus of the Goths and Romans
(6.30.26).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 223

already made up his mind to mount an invasion and that

Justinian had authorized the operation in writing;20 his address
to his fellow officers, accordingly, is aimed at building consen-
sus as well as eliciting useful information.21 Aligning himself
with “the great emperor,” moreover, affords Belisarius the op-
portunity to claim proximity to power even as he isolates and
mystifies its source. Justinian’s distance from the scene of the
action is at the same time a debility to be overcome—the em-
peror cannot be aware of facts on the ground—and a point of
leverage: Belisarius’ claim of privileged access to the emperor is
aimed at keeping subordinates in line.
Resorting to a tactic otherwise employed in the Wars mainly
to overawe opponents (see Table 1), Belisarius inadvertently
discloses his comparative disadvantage in relation to comman-
ders with more recent and relevant experience in the theater of
operations. Owing to the organizational scheme of the Wars,
this moment [a] in mid-541, which is chronologically sub-
sequent to Belisarius’ letter to the Goths [b] in late 533, is prior
in the narrative space-time of the work as a whole, falling in the
second book of the Persian War (Wars 2) as opposed to the
second book of the Vandal War (Wars 4). To the extent, then,
that there is some historical basis to these invocations of “the
great emperor,” Belisarius’ tactic in the Persian War of 541 [a]
reflects habits already engrained in the western campaigns of

20 Wars 2.16.4–5: Βελισάριος δὲ … παντὶ τῷ στρατῷ αὐτίκα ἐσβάλλειν

ἐς τῶν πολεµίων τὴν γῆν ἤθελε … καὶ βασιλεὺς γράµµατα γράψας ἐσ-
βάλλειν κατὰ τάχος ἐς τὴν πολεµίων ἐπέστελλε γῆν, “And Belisarius …
wished to invade the land of the enemy immediately with his whole army …
And also the emperor wrote a letter instructing him to invade the enemy’s
country with all speed.”
21 J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire II (London 1923) 103 with
n.72, remarks upon Belisarius’ deferential and consultative approach. See
the overview of the campaign in Geoffrey Greatrex and S. N. C. Lieu (eds.),
The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars II AD 363–630 (London/New
York 2002) 108–109. Procopius provides alternative explanations for Beli-
sarius’ limited success: Wars 2.19.26–46, cf. Anec. 2.18–22.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
224 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

the 530s, not only at Lilybaeum [b] but subsequently in Libya

and Italy [c]–[e], and recapitulated as the Gothic War dragged
on [f]–[g].

Invocations of “the Great Emperor” (βασιλεὺς ὁ µέγας)

in Procopius of Caesarea
Dramatic
Wars date Address Expression
2.16.9 [a] mid 541 Belisarius, speech to imperial βασιλεῖ τῷ
officers (ξυνάρχοντες) in µεγάλῳ
Mesopotamia
4.5.12, [b] late 533 Belisarius, letter to Goths in βασιλέα τὸν
16 Lilybaeum µέγαν bis
4.11.3 [c] early 535 Solomon, letter to Mauri in βασιλεῖ τῷ
Libya µεγάλῳ
5.8.16 [d] Oct. 536 Belisarius, speech to Stephanus, ὑπὸ βασιλεῖ
an envoy from Naples τῷ µεγάλῳ
6.25.22 [e] mid 539 Belisarius, letter to Theudebert, ἐς βασιλέα
near Fiesole µέγαν
7.11.8 [f ] mid 544 Belisarius, speech to Romans ἐκ τοῦ
and Goths at Ravenna µεγάλου
βασιλέως
8.30.2 [g] June 552 Narses, speech to the imperial βασιλέως
army at Busta Gallorum τοῦ µεγάλου

TABLE 1
These instances are discussed below; inasmuch as there is
evidently scant corroborating evidence for such a practice in
the documentary record, as discussed above, we cannot ex-
clude the possibility that much of this is Procopius’ invention.
The fragments of Menander Protector, whose diplomatic
speeches may reproduce details available in his archival
sources,22 include, however, an address on behalf of Justin II

22 See R. C. Blockley, The History of Menander the Guardsman (Liverpool

1985), esp. 9–13; cf. Barry Baldwin, “Menander Protector,” DOP 32 (1978)
101–125, esp. 118. On record-keeping in the later empire see A. D. Lee,
Information and Frontiers: Roman Foreign Relations in Late Antiquity (Cambridge

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 225

(imp. 565–578) by the Roman ambassador Zemarchus to the

Turkish qaghan Ištemi/Sizabul (Exc. de leg. Rom. 8 = Blockley
fr.10.3; transl. Blockley, modified):23
σοὶ δῆτα, ἔφη, ὦ τοσούτων ἐθνῶν ἡγεµών, ὁ καθ’ ἡµᾶς βασιλεὺς
ὁ µέγας ἀγγελιαφόρῳ χρησάµενος ἐµοὶ ἐσήµηνεν εἶναι ἐς ἀεὶ
τὴν τύχην αἰσίαν τε καὶ ἀγαθήν, ἐν ἡδονῇ ποιουµένῳ σοι τὰ
Ῥωµαίων καὶ πρός γε φιλοφρονουµένῳ ἡµᾶς.
To you, ruler of so many peoples, our great emperor says, through
me, his messenger: “May your fortune always be good and suc-
cess be with you, who are our friend and well-disposed toward
the Roman state.”
Procopius’ fidelity toward his sources, accordingly, should not
be dismissed out of hand. In the absence of additional instances
of the practice, we must in any event content ourselves with
evaluating its effect upon Procopius’ work as a whole.
Similar language appears elsewhere in the Vandal War, in the
letter addressed by Belisarius’ successor in North Africa, Sol-
omon, to the leaders of the Mauri (Wars 4.11.3):
ὑµεῖς δὲ, οἷς τὸ παράδειγµα ἐγγύθεν ἐκ τῶν συνοίκων ὑµῖν
Βανδίλων ἐστὶ, τί ποτε ἆρα παθόντες χεῖράς τε ἀνταίρειν ἔγνωτε
βασιλεῖ τῷ µεγάλῳ καὶ τὴν ὑµῶν αὐτῶν σωτηρίαν προέσθαι;
But as for you, who have an example near at hand in your
neighbors, the Vandals, what in the world has come over you
that you have decided to raise your hands against the great emperor
[c] and throw away your own security?
In the Gothic War Belisarius offers terms to the Goths garrison-
ing Naples in 536 (Wars 5.8.16):
___
1993) 33–40; on the representation of diplomatic letters and speeches in
historiography see Ekaterina Nechaeva, Embassies, Negotiations, Gifts: Systems of
East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity (Stuttgart 2014) 44–49.
23 The occasion is datable to 570/1. On the context see PLRE III 1416–

1417 s.v. Zemarchus 3; Greatrex and Lieu, Roman Eastern Frontier 136–137;
James Howard-Johnston, “The Sasanians’ Strategic Dilemma,” in Henning
Börm and Josef Wiesehöfer (eds.), Commutatio et contentio. Studies in the Late
Roman, Sasanian, and Early Islamic Near East in Honor of Zeev Rubin (Düsseldorf
2010) 37–70.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
226 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

Γότθοις δὲ τοῖσδε τοῖς παροῦσιν αἵρεσιν δίδοµεν, ἢ ξὺν ἡµῖν

τοῦ λοιποῦ ὑπὸ βασιλεῖ τῷ µεγάλῳ τετάχθαι, ἢ κακῶν ἀπαθέσιν
τὸ παράπαν οἴκαδε ἰέναι.
But as for the Goths who are present, we give them a choice,
either to array themselves hereafter on our side under the great
emperor [d], or to go to their homes entirely free from harm.
He writes to Theudebert as leader of the Franks in 539
(6.25.22):
νῦν δὲ οὐχ ὅσον ἀµφοτέροις ἐκποδὼν ἕστηκας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπλα
οὕτως ἀνεπισκέπτως ἀράµενος ἐφ’ ἡµᾶς ἥκεις. µὴ σύ γε, ὦ
βέλτιστε, καὶ ταῦτα ἐς βασιλέα µέγαν ὑβρίζων, ὃν δή που τὴν
ὕβριν µὴ λίαν ἐν τοῖς µεγίστοις ἀµείψεσθαι οὐκ εἰκὸς εἴη.
But now, far from standing aside for both sides [i.e. the Goths
and the imperial forces], you have actually taken up arms in this
reckless manner and attacked us. My excellent friend, please
don’t do this, all the more so as it involves an insult to the great
emperor [e], who would be likely to exact a huge retribution for
the insult.
He addresses the Goths in Ravenna after the accession of
Totila and Belisarius’ return to Italy in 544 (7.11.7–8):
ὅτῳ τε ὑµῶν ξυγγενεῖς ἢ φίλοι παρὰ Τουτίλᾳ τῷ τυράννῳ
τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, µεταπεµψάσθω τούτους ὅτι τάχιστα τὴν
βασιλέως δηλώσας γνώµην. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὑµῖν τά τε ἐκ τῆς
εἰρήνης καὶ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως ἀγαθὰ γένοιτο.
If any one of you [Goths] happens to have relatives or friends
with the usurper (turannos) Totila, let him summon them as
quickly as possible, explaining the emperor’s purpose. In this
way you may gain the blessings that flow both from peace and
from the great emperor [f ].
In Book 8 of the Wars Narses hails Justinian in referring con-
temptuously to the Goths while addressing his own forces
before the battle of Busta Gallorum in 552 (8.30.2):
οἵ γε δοῦλοι βασιλέως τοῦ µεγάλου τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὄντες καὶ
δραπέται γεγενηµένοι τύραννόν τε αὑτοῖς ἀγελαῖόν τινα ἐκ τοῦ
συρφετοῦ προστησάµενοι ἐπικλοπώτερον συνταράξαι τὴν Ῥω-
µαίων ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ καιροῦ τινος ἴσχυσαν.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 227

[The Goths] were originally slaves of the great emperor [g] who ran
away and, setting a tyrant over themselves who was a worthless
fellow from the common rabble, have been able for some time
to wreak havoc in the Roman empire by their thievery.
In every instance the message is clear: to be aligned with the
great emperor is to enjoy access to peace, security, and
prosperity, while to oppose or to obstruct his designs is to court
disaster. Notable too is the characteristic way in which this
figure is invoked with reference strictly to barbarians in the
post-Roman West, especially in contexts in which the inter-
locutor is addressing himself to a composite audience, as when
Belisarius is making a joint appeal to Neapolitans and Goths
early in the Italian campaign [d]24 and once again to Romans
and Goths at Ravenna in 544 [f ]. Indeed, apart from Beli-
sarius’ speech to his fellow officers in Mesopotamia [a], where
his somewhat maladroit remarks seem symptomatic, as we
have seen, of the unfamiliar position in which he finds himself,
these speeches and letters make western barbarians exclusively
and expressly the objects over which the great emperor exer-
cises his sway.
It bears emphasizing, moreover, that nowhere in the Wars
does Procopius echo or endorse this language in his own nar-
ratorial voice. Such language remains embedded, accordingly,
in Procopius’ narrative and features as a recurrent element of
stylization—as a motif—in the spoken and written speech-acts
in which it appears. Even while Belisarius resorts to this motif
more often than anyone else, it is not uniquely his own. We
should recognize it, therefore, as the hallmark of an almost eth-
nographically inscribed species of stereotyped ‘big talk’ aimed
at and framed around barbarians, over whom Justinian’s pre-
dominance might be asserted uncritically and hyperbolically,

24 On this exchange see Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic

Italy, 489–554 (Cambridge 1997) 172–173; Charles Pazdernik, “Procopius

and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and Brasidas in the
Field,” TAPA 130 (2000) 149–187, esp. 171–181.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
228 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

but about whom, in the sixth century, there was particular

urgency and anxiety. Procopius’ Wars traces the hardening of
Justinian’s initial ambivalence about the emergence of peer
polities among the post-Roman successor states in the West—
an ambivalence of which his prospective recognition of Geli-
mer as basileus in Vandal North Africa is emblematic—into a
grim determination to sweep them away under the banner of
imperial reconquest. Belisarius’ invocation of the great em-
peror in the dispute with the Goths over Lilybaeum is a reflex
of this larger geopolitical reorientation, and Narses’ at Busta
Gallorum its appalling culmination.
Two moments in the Wars expose the vacuousness of all this
absolutist rhetoric by turning it on its head. Already in the first
book of the Persian War, the imperial envoy Rufinus declares to
Kavadh I/Cabadês of Persia (Wars 1.16.2):25
καίτοι βασιλεῖ µεγάλῳ τε καὶ ἐς τόσον ξυνέσεως ἥκοντι ἐκ
πολέµου εἰρήνην πρυτανεῦσαι µᾶλλον ἂν πρέποι ἢ τῶν πραγ-
µάτων εὖ καθεστώτων ταραχὴν οὐ δέον αὑτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς πέλας
προστρίβεσθαι.
It would be more seemly for a king (basileus) who is not only
great (megas) but also as wise as you are to lead matters out of
war and into peace, rather than, when affairs were satisfactorily
settled, to inflict unnecessary turmoil upon himself and his
neighbors.
For more than a millennium, Greeks and Romans had been
taught to know a Persian monarch as the Great King; Rufinus
can play upon the title, even though Chosroês and his prede-
cessors are never acknowledged as such in the Wars, a work
that reserves the expression, as its readers come to discover,
solely for Justinian. At this early point in the narrative, how-
ever, Rufinus’ assertion that a megas basileus ought to behave in

25 The embassy took place in August of 530, after Belisarius’ victory at

Dara; for the context see Geoffrey Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502–
532 (Leeds 1998) 190–192. For Rufinus’ life and career see PLRE II 954–
957 s.v. Rufinus 13. He and his family cultivated close contacts with the
Persian court: Lee, Information and Frontiers 46–47.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
 CHARLES F. PAZDERNIK 229

an exemplary fashion rather than its opposite has a common-

place quality, and the sting of obloquy is mild.26
The second appearance of substantially the same remark
reveals its formulaic quality while coming across with consid-
erably sharper bite. Procopius tells us that Amalasuntha, con-
scious that her position was jeopardized by Athalaric’s failing
health, opened secret negotiations with Justinian, through his
envoy Alexander,27 over surrendering to him her kingdom; the
ostensible purpose of Alexander’s embassy, however, was to
lodge the emperor’s protests about a number of unsettled
disputes, including notably the ongoing Ostrogothic occupation
of the fortress at Lilybaeum.28 The occasion afforded Amala-
suntha the opportunity to offer a pointed rebuttal of Belisarius’
opening salvo on behalf of “the great emperor” (5.3.19; cf.
4.5.12, 16 [b]):
βασιλέα µέγαν τε καὶ ἀρετῆς µεταποιούµενον, ὀρφανῷ παιδὶ
καὶ ὡς ἥκιστα τῶν πρασσοµένων ἐπαισθανοµένῳ µᾶλλον ξυλ-
λαβέσθαι εἰκὸς ἢ ἐξ οὐδεµιᾶς αἰτίας διάφορον εἶναι.
One would reasonably expect an emperor (basileus) who is great
(megas) and who lays claim to virtue to assist an orphan child [i.e.
Athalaric] who does not in the least understand what is going
on, rather than to quarrel with him for no cause at all.

26 Rufinus prefaces his address to Cabadês by declaring, “O king, I have

been sent by your brother [monarch, i.e. Justinian], who reproaches you
with a just reproach” (ἔπεµψέ µε, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὁ σὸς ἀδελφὸς µέµψιν δικαίαν
µεµφόµενος, 1.16.1). Cabadês responded constructively, 1.16.9–10; cf. John
Malalas 453–456; Theophanes A.M. 6022–6023.
27 See PLRE III 41–42 s.v. Alexander 1. Other sources indicate that he

had accompanied Rufinus on his embassy to Kavadh in 530 (see nn.25–26

above), a detail unmentioned by Procopius.
28 Justinian’s letter (5.3.17–18) is curt; Procopius cross-references his

treatment of the initial dispute (5.3.15; cf. 5.4.18–19): τῷ δὲ λόγῳ

πρεσβευτὴν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον βασιλεὺς ἔπεµψε, τοῖς τε ἀµφὶ τῷ Λιλυβαίῳ
ξυνταραχθεὶς (ἅπερ µοι ἐν τοῖς ἔµπροσθεν λόγοις δεδήλωται), “The pretext
was that the emperor had sent Alexander as an envoy because he was
greatly disturbed by the events at Lilybaeum that I have explained in earlier
books [3.8.13, 4.5.11–25].”

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230
230 “THE GREAT EMPEROR”

Amalasuntha reproaches Justinian in terms taken straight out

of the playbook, as the Persian War has shown us, of a polished
Roman diplomat practicing his art at the court of the Great
King. If she succeeds in puncturing Belisarius’ pretentions, her
accomplishment is ironically self-subverting: Procopius’ narra-
tive has informed us that her performance is itself merely an
act, a display of false bravado calculated to distract attention
from her imminent capitulation.
Figuring Justinian as basileus ho megas reveals itself, in Pro-
copius’ Wars, as a conspicuously transparent pose, an over-
compensating impulse by which the emperor’s subordinates
attempt to win compliance through intimidation and inad-
vertently register insecurity or blithe indifference about geo-
political complexity and ambiguity. Ostensibly frank talk is
anything but frank. Indeed, only after his own aspirations are
shattered can Gelimer, would-be basileus and humbled turannos,
speak frankly in puncturing the pretentions apparent in his own
spectacle of submission before Justinian by repeatedly uttering,
Procopius tells us, the verse from Ecclesiastes (1:2): µαταιότης
µαταιοτήτων, τὰ πάντα µαταιότης, “vanity of vanities, all is
vanity.”29
September, 2016 Department of Classics
Grand Valley State Univ.
Allendale, MI 49401
pazdernc@gvsu.edu

29 Wars 4.9.11. See Kaldellis, Procopius of Caesarea 141; Pazdernik, GRBS

46 (2006) 201–206.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 214–230