JUSTINIAN AND RECONQUESTThe emperor had a pretext for war in the murder of his protégée Amalasun-
tha, the daughter of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric and mother of the dead
Athalaric, who had misguidedly offered the throne to Theodatus.^21 Justinian
also had good political reasons at home for mounting such an attempt, even
against the prudent opinions of his advisers, for he had only recently weath-
ered with extreme diffi culty the great riot in Constantinople known as the ‘Nika
revolt’ (from the cries of ‘nika’ (‘victory’) by the rioters). During the uprising,
the emperor had allegedly only been prevented from fl eeing altogether by the
resolve of the Empress Theodora, who rallied the imperial party by declaring in
ringing tones that she would never fl ee – ‘empire is a fi ne shroud’.^22 The circus
factions (‘Blues’ and ‘Greens’) were prominent in the rioting, and in Procopius’
account of it, and participants in urban violence were all too likely to take up
particular grievances; the factions reappear as players in the fall of the Emperor
Maurice and the unrest in eastern cities which led to the overthrow of Phocas
in the early seventh century (Chapter 9, and for urban violence, see Chapter 7).
The hippodrome in Constantinople was the epicentre of the ‘Nika’ revolt, and it
was here where imperial troops went in, led by Belisarius, and killed many of the
crowd. The rioters voiced their demands in the form of shouting and acclama-
tions addressed to the imperial box, and the fl avour of this chanting is vividly
conveyed in the seventh-century Chronicon Paschale.^23
The immediate danger to the regime was averted, though only at the price
of much destruction and great loss of life. Serious damage had been done
to the offi cial areas in the centre of Constantinople, including the church
of St Sophia, and this was now rebuilt on a grand scale; the church as we
see it today was rededicated in 535. Procopius claims that it was also felt
that since the situation on the eastern front against Persia was satisfactory
after the treaty of 533, a successful expedition might restore the emperor’s
reputation. This impression is reinforced by Procopius’ emphasis on the
opposition to Justinian’s scheme, which he shared, and the role played in
his narrative at this point by prophetic dreams – he even claims to have
had a dream himself of Belisarius’ future success. Belisarius’ fl eet landed at
Ras Kapoudia on the east coast of Tunisia, and learned that Gelimer, who
had deposed the relatively pro-Roman Hilderic in 530, was absent from
Carthage. By September Belisarius had defeated the Vandal army outside
Carthage and in a sensational move, entered the city, where, according to
Procopius, who was there, he feasted in the palace and seated himself on
Gelimer’s throne.^24 A further victory in December resulted in Gelimer’s
surrender; in traditional Roman style, Justinian had already taken the vic-
tory titles of Vandalicus and Africanus.^25 This extraordinarily easy success,
combined with the murder of Amalasuntha, made similar action against the
Goths in Italy seem equally feasible. The reforming laws of this period have
an optimistic and energetic tone which fi ts Justinian’s confi dent expecta-
tions of imperial success.^26 He was not to know that the Italian campaigns
would drag on for nearly twenty years, or that the price of the fi nal settle-
ment in AD 554 would be a devastated Italy.