Talk:Nika riots

Untitled

An event in this article is a January 11 selected anniversary

Top

The usage "the most violent Constantinople had ever seen" is not standard English. The former phrase, "the most violence [sic] ...", is. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Was Narses actually involved in this? My Byzantine history text book (by Warren Treadgold) doesn't mention Narses at all, and says it was Belisarius and Mundus (a commander of some sort under Belisarius, who is not mentioned anywhere else). Mundus apparently comes from Procopius ([1]).

According to Bury ([2]) at least, Narses was involved in the creation of chaos in the hippodrome before the two generals Mundus and Belisarius struck. I have an additional textbook, by Robert Browning I think, that claims that Narses sent out agents in the crowd to start cheering for Justinian. In any case, Narses was at the time the commander of the Emperor's eunuch bodyguard, so it's probable that he played a prominent role. Bror Martin

Narses was involved in the riots, according to Norwich as well.Zambetis 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Diehl [Theodora, Empress of Byzantium, 1972]. Narses was himself a eunuch (I have no idea about the bodyguards) and Theodora got him appointed a general, sometimes replacing Belisarius in later campaigns. Narses is also reported to have paid Blue leaders to support Justinian and leave the Hippodrome. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Mundus seems to have been commander of a few thousand "barbarians", passing through the city at the time. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

the Chariot "fans"

Calling the "Greens", "Blues", "Reds" & "Whites" "sports fans" is more than a poor choice of words. They were organized factions, with a long history under the Roman Empire. Every major city had chapters of these factions, where they rampaged as unchecked mobs: for example, about the year 492 the Greens of Antioch burned down the synagogue in Antioch.

Even the dreaded British football ruffians had nothing on these lot. -- llywrch 04:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are "fans" in the most literal sense of "fanatics", I guess. But what should we use, factions? That doesn't seem to describe it fully either..."street gangs"? But more organized? Adam Bishop 06:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the book or two I've read about them, I recall the word "circus faction" being used to describe them as a group, but the author would then call them simply by their color -- "Greens", "Blues", "Reds" & "Whites". Chariot racing does a fair job of explaining these social groups.

Sadly, our ancient sources failed to record much about them. They considered these cliques or factions all one variant or another of an otherwise undifferentiated mob, & alluded to these lower-class groups with as few words as possible. -- llywrch 23:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Faction" seems to be as close as we can come with a common modern word. By the time of the Nika riots, only the Greens & Blues were still very active in Constantinople. They had strong class (and maybe religious sect) ties, but not a political platform or ideology.Jmacwiki (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just why is this popular theme for science fiction?

The article fails to explain why such a relatively remote and not obviously all that remarkable event is an inspiration for numerous science fiction writers. If anybody knows this, please add it. -- 84.57.21.99 04:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I doubt anybody really knows, and it's not our place to invent theories anyway - we'd have to find a scholarly article on the subject and quote from it. Talk page speculation is OK though; my theory is that it is one of the few events of ancient history that seems anachronistic, with its modern-day-like connection to sports obsession, and yet very bloody in the ancient way. So I think writers find it intriguing, and perhaps see it as a little window into the human psyche. Of course, we could just send the authors email and ask. :-) Stan 05:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, this event by itself is not what inspired those writers.The reign of Justinian (as the last effort by the Roman empire to reclaim it's western provinces) and Belisarius(as one of the greatest military leaders) is their inspiration.And since this was one of the most important events of their time it's only natural that they would mention it.Padem 13:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. (Also, with Procopius so closely connected with Belisarius himself, our principle historian for Justinian's reign would give it additional weight.) Theodora's role is also remarkable here. Speculation: The empire was able to reassert itself so widely because it had at least one extraordinary and entirely loyal general, two strong co-emperors, and a 40-year reign. A strikingly unusual confluence. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Where does the name Nika come from? olivier 07:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a name actually but a slogan. The rebells supposedly shouted "Nika", roughly translated as "victory". According to a modern Greek dictionary: the word comes from the Imperative mood of the verb Niko (Νικώ). The verb is usually translated in English as "overcome, overwhelm, subdue" . The name of the goddess Nike also derives from the same verb. User: Dimadick

Hi I am Greek. "Níka" (Νίκα) indeed is in the imperative mood the second singular of the verb "Nikò" (Νικώ) which means freely in English "you (go and) win" (as an order). The same is valid for both Byzantine and Anchient Greek.

Therefore, I suggest the change of this article with the correct translation. More specifically, where it says: ...the chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to "Nika" (Greek word for "Victory" or "Conquer") and the crowds broke out and...

it must be changed to:

...the chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to "Nika" (Greek word ordering to "Win" or "Conquer") and the crowds broke out and... NikoSilver 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, no problems with that suggestion.--cjllw | TALK 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "(Greek word ordering to "Win" or "Conquer")" would be confusing to English-speaking readers. "word ordering" would likely be read as "which word comes first" which doesn't make sense. I like the current wording better, even if it isn't 100% technically correct. KarlBunker 13:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about something like, ..(exhortation in Greek to "win", "conquer", or "achieve victory")  ?--cjllw | TALK 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I already changed it. People seem to forget that the article itself has an edit button too... Adam Bishop 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be, although I also have just now made an amendment to it, without however first checking the history or registering that you'd made that earlier change, Adam. If you want to change it back, I don't really mind the wording.--cjllw | TALK 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem...but it's actually just an imperative, rather than an exhortation, isn't it? I mean, I guess those are generally the same thing, but it is grammatically imperative. Adam Bishop 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but I dunno how familiar or otherwise the casual reader may be with grammatical terminology - maybe we were better off with the original! :-) --cjllw | TALK 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Although exhortation may be too technical, the recent edit covers my point fine. -NikoSilver 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

table of contents

I added headings to this article, but for some reason (at least at the moment and on my browser) no table of contents is being generated. This is supposed to happen automatically when you add headings, and I've seen it work before. Couldn't find anything that explained this in WK's help pages. Weird

You need four headings to make a table of contents appear. Adam Bishop 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha! thanks for the info! KarlBunker 12:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cause

People, the cause of the riots was more than taxes. It was to do with the Iconclasm. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs) .

There were many reasons, as I recall ( I wrote my IB extended essay about the riots), being for example the taxes that forced a lot of poor farmers to move to Constantinople, creating much civil unrest. Iconoclasm cannot be blamed as that controversy was in the 8th century. Persecution of monophysites can be consaidered a factor that made the nobility prone to support the masses in their rebellion, but can not really be called a cause IMO, as the masses were mostly not monophysites (correct me if I'm wrong). I do also recall (sorry, I don't have my essay for the moment) that Justinian did tamper with the system of subventioning bread for the poor, which probably made people angry. Also I think it's probable that Justinian's arrogant way of ruling the empire is partly to be blamed, he seems to have had little sympathy for the downtrodden.BrorMartin 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This overlaps with Diehl's explanations, too: Little sympathy by Justinian, high taxes, as well as Theodora's strongly biased and sometimes very unjust support for the Blues (virtually never overruled or even tempered by Justinian). Perhaps some other contributors as well. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule of law

Re: this section recently added and moved here:

The rebellion escalated to the point that it put "civilization on the edge". Military historian William Weir, who authored Battles 50 that Changed the world ranked the Nika rebellion of 532 AD, as the second most significant conflict that influenced the course of history. According to Weir, what was at stake was "the rule of law". Justinian could commence his greatest accomplishment: the codification of the law. Weir also states, "the rule of law, not the changing whims of a succession of tyrants, became established in Western civilization.

What Weir is saying here is, if Justinian had lost the battle, he would have never become emperor, and thus the Justinian Code would have never come into being - the Justinian Code being very important later in the Middle Ages in transmitting Roman laws into the modern west. However, this is pure speculation on Weir's part, as who is to say the next emperor would not have codified Roman Law under a different name (it wasn't Justinian himself who did it but talented people working for him that could just as easily worked for the next emperor). I'm not sure Weir's emphasis is justified except in the context of his book in trying to find meaning and order for 50 battles. -- Stbalbach 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I haven't read the book, but to me it looks very much like a rhetoric device to justify including the Nika riot in a list of maybe more spectacular battles. Whatever the case, I agree that that contention has no place here. It is dependent on a method called counterfactual history, which is a branch of history as entertaining as it is controversial. Iblardi 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful: Justinian would certainly have been the emperor after Justin -- he already WAS the emperor. But his reign might have ended in 7 years instead of 40. FWIW, I greatly doubt that a counterfactual successor emperor (Hypatius, maybe?) would have had the same influence on the West, even if he promulgated the same code. Why? No Theodora, no Belisarius. So no retaking of Italy (among other things) to introduce the legal code directly into Western Europe. (As for counterfactual history: Wouldn't it be silly to learn nothing from history, simply on the grounds that we can't know with certainty how the alternatives would have developed? That argument would apply as much to geology and paleontology, two historical but hard sciences -- and would be as invalid.) Jmacwiki (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One other point: The Nika riots are unusually well documented. The entire exchange between rioters, Justinian's herald, and Justinian himself is recorded, as well as conversations from the inner circle. And, of course, the current Hagia Sophia is a reminder of the riot's fire that destroyed so much of the city. Conceivably, there were equally impressive, destructive, and pivotal riots that left no records; but that does not make Nika's inclusion on Weir's (or anybody else's) list arbitrary. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I read that the Nika Riots were a cause of religious tension apart from the high taxes and political unrest. Was race a factor in the violence between these factions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamGriffin530 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

redirecting

if people is searching for "Nika revolt" can someone make it so that it directs to the article? thanks

Names of the Demes

What were the Greek names of the factions? We call them "blues" and "greens", but as far as I know Koine greek did not have a generic name for the colour "blue". So what were the Greek words? Anyone? Cheers! KC Gustafson (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The names were Βένετοι και Πράσινοι for blues and greens respectively — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5telios (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Image description

The description of the image seems to be mislabeled. AbeBehr (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Name drops

In the passage "It is the view of Mischa Meir that Justinian may have intentionally provoked the riots so that his political rivals within the senate, like Hypatius may reveal themselves to him. This is however a view that was considered radical and was rejected by Pfeilschifter" there ought to be an explanation of who these people are. FatherThornside (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)